9 ms·

Because there's evidence. The same way there's evidence of ransomware and other malware industries being propped up by Russia, Russia cheating in the Olympics,

Because there's evidence. The same way there's evidence of ransomware and other malware industries being propped up by Russia, Russia cheating in the Olympics, Putin murdering journalists and rivals, Putin annexing parts of Ukraine, Putin powering the eastern conflict in Ukraine, Putin purposely bombing US aligned rebels in Syria, etc, etc. All these things were denied by Russia and Russophiles. And that's on top of Russia's incredibly corrupt economic system, where 35% of the wealth in Russia belong to about 100 people. I think a lot of Russophiles are getting the big dose of reality we've been warning about for quite some some. I don't think how its even possible to start giving Russia this benefit of the doubt considering its leadership's recent actions and the evidence we have. If you think Russia doesn't have a non-stop cyberwar with us then I've got a bridge to sell you.

saynsedit 10y ago
Ukraine situation is way more complicated than Putin simply annexing it. Lots of history there and lots of US meddling as well as Russia. Additionally, our economic system is far from perfect too. Ever heard of occupy Wall Street? Lots of wealth inequality here. Awareness of the facts does not a Russophile make. Russia is a global superpower and it acts like a superpower, as do other superpowers.
- varjag 10y ago
  > Ukraine situation is way more complicated than Putin simply annexing it. Look, it's Europe. Everyone here has a history with everyone here. Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, in violation of every possible treaty and its own constitution, is not a matter of opinion. It's also first in Europe since WW2.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    Russia isn't the only country that violates international treaties and its own constitution... Ever heard of Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European affairs during the Ukrainian crisis? "Fuck the EU" she said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
    - varjag 10y ago
      Have you read the transcript outside this phrase? It's always the profanity part being quoted, for lack of anything controversial. But well, Britain said essentially the same during Brexit, and I don't see Putin fans upset with that. I know you make it some tit-for-tat scheme, where Russia is justified to retaliate the USA for some real or perceived sin. However Russia doesn't leash off on its stated archenemy, as humiliation of defeat is not something Putin is looking for. Instead it backstabs Ukraine, the nation without a functioning military and reeling from domestic crisis, which is hardly responsible for injustices of the United States.
      - saynsedit 10y ago
        "Putin fan" is not a term I would use to describe myself or anyone who is seriously analyzing the situation from a rational unbiased perspective. Nor would I use "tit-for-tat," "backstab," and "archenemy" to describe the events that have transpired. It makes it hard to discuss/analyze history with someone who is assessing the situation in those comic book terms with a clear anti-Russian bias. My intention was not to defend Russia but simply to give evidence on the complexity of events in Ukraine and the multiple actors involved. Personally I find this complexity extremely interesting. Is there a specific point you want to get across? Your dramatic retelling of the events in Ukraine is entertaining and I encourage you to adapt it into a screenplay and sell it to Hollywood. Aside from that I'm not quite sure what your specific point is.
        varjag 10y ago
        > "Putin fan" is not a term I would use to describe myself or anyone who is seriously analyzing the situation from a rational unbiased perspective. You certainly wouldn't use it as you rightly perceive general hostility to Putin fans over here. I'm not sure what your propaganda fix is. Your casting me as an unsophisticated American, despite my blindingly obvious Russian reference username suggests you are a 2nd gen immigrant, so it's prolly RT. But it's certain you like to think that your opinion is not formed by propaganda in one bit, and you rather arrived to it independently (even if down to same exact talking points) at a bidding of your intellect. I won't even bother you asking the shebboleth of "чей Крым", as I certainly know the kind of "it's complicated" Putin-fan-in-a-hostile-environment answer it would entail. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Yeah, he annexed it covertly, denied it was him, his loyal supporters denied it was him, and then when it turned out it was him, suddenly his loyal supporters justified with "lots of history and lots of US meddling." That does make you a Russophile.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    I don't believe I justified any of Russia's actions. It's a complicated situation and there are lots of questionable actors... For example, there is credible speculation that the US funded anti-Russian neonazis in Ukraine http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-training-neo-nazis-in-ukraine.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-... Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article. > The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’” > This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld. So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.
      - saynsedit 10y ago
        It's undeniable that the euromaidan protests had a strong right-wing nationalist component. They were violent and essentially terrorized the country. This essentially led the president of Ukraine to resign. That right-wing faction then controlled Ukraine's government, and is still very strong in Ukraine. We immediately recognized that new government and provided them with aid. That is insane! In the west, their only saving grace was that they were anti-Russian.
- pnathan 10y ago
  > Lots of history there and lots of US meddling as well as Russia. You're using a classic Soviet argument tactic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism You're not responding to the above poster on merit at all, you're deflecting.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    No, you're not responding on the merits. Mentioning the fact that America is involved with a faction in Ukraine and Russia is involved with a different faction in Ukraine when discussing Ukraine is not "whataboutism." Mentioning the fact that America is involved in any situation in the world ("how can they judge us on this when they do that?") that wasn't the exact situation under question could be "whataboutism." The OP didn't even express any disapproval of what Russia did in Ukraine, so how could it be "whataboutism?" Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic.
    - codethief 10y ago
      > Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic. This.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
codethief 10y ago
> Because there's evidence. Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence are you talking about exactly? Could you point me to a source? As for your other points, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Your points have nothing to do with each other, so if you're just trying to portrait Russia and/or Putin as the "source of all evil", then I've got some bad news: One could easily turn your points on the head and do the same with the United States. Examples: > Putin purposely bombing US aligned rebels in Syria The fact they're US-aligned doesn't make them good. Newsflash: The US have been supporting extremists in the Middle East for decades, as long as it fits their bill. Besides, in terms of international laws, the West is the party that is illegally engaging in Syria, not Russia. > Putin powering the eastern conflict in Ukraine The same thing could be said about the West, if you look at engagement in the Ukraine, financial support for various groups there, one-sided media reports that are closer to propaganda than anything else… And don't even get me started about US engagement in the Middle East and powering conflicts there. Besides, I'm always thinking about what the United States would do if there was a conflict / civil war in front of their borders… clearly they would engage. Conclusion: I'm not trying to defend Russia at all or justify its actions, I just find it funny that we in the Western World tend to only look at what bad things other countries do when we're probably not any better. I fully agree with the sentiment of saynsedit's post farther down: > Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  > Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence exactly? Could you give a source? Wired: "According to a number of top cybersecurity researchers, they're probably right." (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/) Wired cites the following firms: Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant... and a professor named Thomas Rid. Apparently Crowdstrike is the firm hired by the DNC specifically (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...) but there's more than one organization mentioned. New York Times: "American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee, according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-con...) Reuters: "U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret." (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hack-idUSKCN10N00D http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hac...) The Daily Beast: "The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a singly, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-unmasked-he-really-works-for-russia-researchers-say.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-...) If you want notes from the cybersecurity organizations, why not head to both Crowdstrike's blog on the subject (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...) or ThreatConnect's blog (https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-n...) or a link to Fidelis Cybersecurity's blog (http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-that-they-cant-scratch.html http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-...)? This honestly doesn't seem like weaksauce evidence at first glance. Of course since this is politics / national relations, "you never know". But what I don't see yet via a Google search is a post in a cybersecurity research organization's blog saying Russia didn't hack the DNC. If you come across that, let me know. At present, the argument some are making -- that the evidence that Russia didn't hack the DNC -- seems weak to me. There's just no evidence I am encountering that Russia wasn't involved.

saynsedit 10y ago

Ukraine situation is way more complicated than Putin simply annexing it. Lots of history there and lots of US meddling as well as Russia. Additionally, our economic system is far from perfect too. Ever heard of occupy Wall Street? Lots of wealth inequality here. Awareness of the facts does not a Russophile make. Russia is a global superpower and it acts like a superpower, as do other superpowers.

varjag 10y ago
> Ukraine situation is way more complicated than Putin simply annexing it. Look, it's Europe. Everyone here has a history with everyone here. Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, in violation of every possible treaty and its own constitution, is not a matter of opinion. It's also first in Europe since WW2.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Russia isn't the only country that violates international treaties and its own constitution... Ever heard of Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European affairs during the Ukrainian crisis? "Fuck the EU" she said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
  - varjag 10y ago
    Have you read the transcript outside this phrase? It's always the profanity part being quoted, for lack of anything controversial. But well, Britain said essentially the same during Brexit, and I don't see Putin fans upset with that. I know you make it some tit-for-tat scheme, where Russia is justified to retaliate the USA for some real or perceived sin. However Russia doesn't leash off on its stated archenemy, as humiliation of defeat is not something Putin is looking for. Instead it backstabs Ukraine, the nation without a functioning military and reeling from domestic crisis, which is hardly responsible for injustices of the United States.
    - saynsedit 10y ago
      "Putin fan" is not a term I would use to describe myself or anyone who is seriously analyzing the situation from a rational unbiased perspective. Nor would I use "tit-for-tat," "backstab," and "archenemy" to describe the events that have transpired. It makes it hard to discuss/analyze history with someone who is assessing the situation in those comic book terms with a clear anti-Russian bias. My intention was not to defend Russia but simply to give evidence on the complexity of events in Ukraine and the multiple actors involved. Personally I find this complexity extremely interesting. Is there a specific point you want to get across? Your dramatic retelling of the events in Ukraine is entertaining and I encourage you to adapt it into a screenplay and sell it to Hollywood. Aside from that I'm not quite sure what your specific point is.
      - varjag 10y ago
        > "Putin fan" is not a term I would use to describe myself or anyone who is seriously analyzing the situation from a rational unbiased perspective. You certainly wouldn't use it as you rightly perceive general hostility to Putin fans over here. I'm not sure what your propaganda fix is. Your casting me as an unsophisticated American, despite my blindingly obvious Russian reference username suggests you are a 2nd gen immigrant, so it's prolly RT. But it's certain you like to think that your opinion is not formed by propaganda in one bit, and you rather arrived to it independently (even if down to same exact talking points) at a bidding of your intellect. I won't even bother you asking the shebboleth of "чей Крым", as I certainly know the kind of "it's complicated" Putin-fan-in-a-hostile-environment answer it would entail. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
ethanbond 10y ago
Yeah, he annexed it covertly, denied it was him, his loyal supporters denied it was him, and then when it turned out it was him, suddenly his loyal supporters justified with "lots of history and lots of US meddling." That does make you a Russophile.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  I don't believe I justified any of Russia's actions. It's a complicated situation and there are lots of questionable actors... For example, there is credible speculation that the US funded anti-Russian neonazis in Ukraine http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-training-neo-nazis-in-ukraine.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-... Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article. > The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’” > This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld. So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.
    - saynsedit 10y ago
      It's undeniable that the euromaidan protests had a strong right-wing nationalist component. They were violent and essentially terrorized the country. This essentially led the president of Ukraine to resign. That right-wing faction then controlled Ukraine's government, and is still very strong in Ukraine. We immediately recognized that new government and provided them with aid. That is insane! In the west, their only saving grace was that they were anti-Russian.
pnathan 10y ago
> Lots of history there and lots of US meddling as well as Russia. You're using a classic Soviet argument tactic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism You're not responding to the above poster on merit at all, you're deflecting.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  No, you're not responding on the merits. Mentioning the fact that America is involved with a faction in Ukraine and Russia is involved with a different faction in Ukraine when discussing Ukraine is not "whataboutism." Mentioning the fact that America is involved in any situation in the world ("how can they judge us on this when they do that?") that wasn't the exact situation under question could be "whataboutism." The OP didn't even express any disapproval of what Russia did in Ukraine, so how could it be "whataboutism?" Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic.
  - codethief 10y ago
    > Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic. This.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

codethief 10y ago

> Because there's evidence. Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence are you talking about exactly? Could you point me to a source? As for your other points, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Your points have nothing to do with each other, so if you're just trying to portrait Russia and/or Putin as the "source of all evil", then I've got some bad news: One could easily turn your points on the head and do the same with the United States. Examples: > Putin purposely bombing US aligned rebels in Syria The fact they're US-aligned doesn't make them good. Newsflash: The US have been supporting extremists in the Middle East for decades, as long as it fits their bill. Besides, in terms of international laws, the West is the party that is illegally engaging in Syria, not Russia. > Putin powering the eastern conflict in Ukraine The same thing could be said about the West, if you look at engagement in the Ukraine, financial support for various groups there, one-sided media reports that are closer to propaganda than anything else… And don't even get me started about US engagement in the Middle East and powering conflicts there. Besides, I'm always thinking about what the United States would do if there was a conflict / civil war in front of their borders… clearly they would engage. Conclusion: I'm not trying to defend Russia at all or justify its actions, I just find it funny that we in the Western World tend to only look at what bad things other countries do when we're probably not any better. I fully agree with the sentiment of saynsedit's post farther down: > Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.

soundwave106 10y ago
> Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence exactly? Could you give a source? Wired: "According to a number of top cybersecurity researchers, they're probably right." (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/) Wired cites the following firms: Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant... and a professor named Thomas Rid. Apparently Crowdstrike is the firm hired by the DNC specifically (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...) but there's more than one organization mentioned. New York Times: "American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee, according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-con...) Reuters: "U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret." (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hack-idUSKCN10N00D http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hac...) The Daily Beast: "The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a singly, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-unmasked-he-really-works-for-russia-researchers-say.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-...) If you want notes from the cybersecurity organizations, why not head to both Crowdstrike's blog on the subject (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...) or ThreatConnect's blog (https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-n...) or a link to Fidelis Cybersecurity's blog (http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-that-they-cant-scratch.html http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-...)? This honestly doesn't seem like weaksauce evidence at first glance. Of course since this is politics / national relations, "you never know". But what I don't see yet via a Google search is a post in a cybersecurity research organization's blog saying Russia didn't hack the DNC. If you come across that, let me know. At present, the argument some are making -- that the evidence that Russia didn't hack the DNC -- seems weak to me. There's just no evidence I am encountering that Russia wasn't involved.