59 ms·

I remember when Romney was running for president, he kept saying that Russia was a big threat, and that we were underestimating them. At the time, I thought he

I remember when Romney was running for president, he kept saying that Russia was a big threat, and that we were underestimating them. At the time, I thought he was paranoid. Now, he almost seems prophetic.

krn 8y ago
> I remember when Romney was running for president, he kept saying that Russia was a big threat, and that we were underestimating them. That's why Russia didn't want Mitt Romney to become Trump's secretary of state: "Weeks after Donald Trump was elected president, Russia-backed online “trolls” flooded social media to try to block Mitt Romney from securing a top job in the incoming administration, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows."[1] "Putin’s former secretory, Igor Sechin counts Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s secretary of state, as a close personal friend, after the two men — during Tillerson’s time as Exxon Mobil CEO — struck a 2012 agreement that entailed investments by Exxon and Rosneft worth $500bn. When sanctions imposed on Sechin and Rosneft imperilled that deal and banned him from visiting the US, Russia’s response was to lament that he could no longer “ride the roads of the United States on motorcycles with Tillerson”."[2] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-trolls-tried-to-torpedo-mitt-romneys-shot-at-secretary-of-state-1520505000 https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-trolls-tried-to-torpedo... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/dc7d48f8-1c13-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6 https://www.ft.com/content/dc7d48f8-1c13-11e8-aaca-4574d7dab...
- secfirstmd 8y ago
  On this topic, I really recommend the book by Ronan Farrow: "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  "I know it is true because an American paper says Russian did X and Y". I'm not saying it isn't, but WSJ and FT as sources? Really?
  - pc86 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you want as sources if two well respected, global news publications don't make the cut.
  - fourpacalypse 8y ago
    Those are legit, fairly reliable news sources.
  - krn 8y ago
    If you want to understand how Russia works, there are plenty of international sources. "How Russia won the World Cup" by the The Guardian[1] is a one of them. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/14/how-russia-won-the-world-cup https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/14/how-russia-won-...
    - neonate 8y ago
      The Guardian is not a reliable source on this topic. For example, the ludicrous Luke Harding.
      - krn 8y ago
        The Guardian has published more facts about Russia's interference in Brexit and the US presidential election than probably any other newspaper in the world, and has been owned by a non-profit organization since 1936[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    FT is not by any standard an American paper, unless the US annexed either the UK (where it is HQed) or Japan (where it's corporate parent is based) when I wasn't paying attention.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  I mean I guess it's possible that a large number of Trump supporters on the Internet would be pretty incensed about the prospect of the literal embodiment of the GOP establishment and #NeverTrump being appointed Secretary of State, especially when Trump presented himself during the campaign as anti-interventionist. But nah, russian trolls.
lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
Let's not get too far ahead ourselves in reinterpreting the past. Romney wanted a Russian threat for military spending, specifically another aircraft carrier, and to rally the base; at this time Russia was still the GOP's enemy of choice (how much things change in 5 years). He did turn out to be right, but Im not sure how useful a Cold War mindset of guns and bombs rather than bits and propaganda really is in the 21st century.
cryoshon 8y ago
russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries. they are a "big threat" in the sense that we play opposite them in the game of global chess. put differently: all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa. you could substitute in several other parties like china and say the same thing. this is a good situation for everyone to be in. the thing to remember is that there are many of these inches trading hands at all times. no major player is about to risk trying to grab a mile or inflicting any kind of serious blow that could be overtly attributed to them as an act warranting retribution. remember, for every effort the players make, it opens them up to opportunism by the others who aren't affected by that effort. so, russia is, almost by definition, a threat. but that's business as usual, not cause for alarm. the threat is not an existential one, at present. i'm also of the mind that romney's interpretation of russia being a threat was primarily military in nature rather than political. that interpretation -- implying russia could invade europe or something similar -- was ridiculous at the time, and has been proven false given the difficulty that russia has had in ukraine.
- tcbawo 8y ago
  I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. Rather than military conquest, it seems the world powers are vying to own the technological walled garden we build for ourselves.
  - presscast 8y ago
    >I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum. Nationalism is a choice, one embraced by the current U.S. administration (and others), but it's not the norm: Since WWII the U.S. has been the leading supporter of internationalism.
padseeker 8y ago
If you say something like "This house needs a better security system, or your house will be robbed" and then someone in your own family robs the house, that is not prophecy. It's one thing to see the future. It's totally different when you recognize a threat or a weakness, then actively exploit that very weakness for your own gain, or at least look the other way. When Romney was so prophetic in his analysis, did he factor that his own party would be actively working with them to undermine American Influence over the world? Did he consider that, now that they are such a threat to America, that he himself would prioritize his political party over country?
- secfirstmd 8y ago
  Yeh he was all ready to sign-up as Secretary of State when Trump dangled it in front of him.
- krylon 8y ago
  > When Romney was so prophetic in his analysis, did he factor that his own party would be actively working with them to undermine American Influence over the world? I hate to be that guy, but from the perspective of large parts of the world, "American Influence" could well use some undermining. The USA have played the game of meddling in other countries' internal affairs for over a century, from the very subtle (trade policies, tariffs, etc.) to the rather overt (invading a country and forcefully overthrowing their government). Now it turns out others can play that game, too. It's not as much fun being on the short end of that particular stick, now, is it? Pardon me if I sound cynical, but that is like somebody who beats up their family on a regular basis decrying domestic violence when the wife begins learning Karate and strikes back for a change. If the USA started treating other countries as sovereign nations instead of sorting them into the lackey/enemy buckets, the world might start to look a lot less threatening... /rant
  - padseeker 8y ago
    I'm ok with your rant. Whether I agree with your point or not the irrelevant to my point. Can you at least recognize at least a little irony that group that typically advocates the loudest for swinging Uncle Sam's dick around whenever possible seem to be looking the other way when a foreign adversary is undermining our country and in the process diminishing our influence? You know that guy that always yelling about America being number 1, wearing an American flag, living in the greatest and most powerful country in the world, complaining about the UN won't do everything the USA wants whenever it wants? Same person is at least ignoring, and more likely welcoming, Putin's help in getting Trump like GOP politicians elected. And in the process we have less sway with our allies in Europe. It's pretty extraordinary isn't it?
martythemaniak 8y ago
Yes, but did Romney tell warn us of the real danger - a large group of Americans who'll work tirelessly to cover and diminish Russian attacks because it works to their political advantage?
- ataturk 8y ago
  RMoney is MIC all the way. He's a mouthpiece for the warmongers.
anon08142018 8y ago
Romney also suggested requiring porn filters on every computer sold to protect the children.
- spinach 8y ago
  They need to be protected somehow. Doesn't seem like that bad of an idea.
  - pc86 8y ago
    "Who needs freedom of expression? I'd rather avoid a thirty second conversation about sex with my children."
    - NDizzle 8y ago
      30 seconds?!
    - 77777777 8y ago
      Porn isn't freedom of expression, it's hate speech as it abuses women by objectifying them and pushing heteronormative beauty standards. Maybe male on male porn is okay but it is probably also hate speech.
      - justaaron 8y ago
        "officer, they abused me by pushing heternormative beauty standards upon me" some people like porn. different people like different porn. some people like to get spanked...
  - krapp 8y ago
    I support the idea of content filters for children where appropriate... just not as a matter of law.
- deepakhj 8y ago
  Honestly we need filters on churches that molest children too.
nostrademons 8y ago
Sort of. Russia is a threat in that they're an expansionist power whose interests are not always aligned with ours, and that their culture is one where you take any advantage you can and use it to leverage your power. Many Americans don't realize just how small Russia is in terms of the real numbers that matter. Their GDP is less than half of California's. (You can see why they've been funding Californian secessionist efforts - an independent California is a bigger threat to America than Russia is - but so far these have pitifully low traction amongst actual Californians.) Their population is less than half of the U.S, and is shrinking. Their military is a pale shadow of its Cold War size. Many people have this image of them as the second world superpower, which was always a bit of a mirage, but is doubly false after the breakup of the Soviet Union, which took away half their population and 25% of their land area. There's a certain irony where most Americans think the biggest threat to American hegemony is either Russia, North Korea, or Islamic fundamentalism (the former two of which are bit players with outsize threats, and the latter of which has the organizational & technological sophistication of 200 years ago), while the real threats are either an ascendant China (4x the U.S. population, 60% the GDP and projected to overtake the U.S. by 2029, already the world's largest trading partner) or domestic disturbances that lead to the breakup of the U.S, much the same way the USSR broke up.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  > they're an expansionist power That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire. What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like any state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out ~160mm total. Both NATO and the EU have progressively expanded towards the former Soviet bloc since the fall of the USSR. From the West's perspective, this is bringing liberal multiparty democracy and stability to an unstable Eastern Europe. But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years [2]). Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Gr... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/

krn 8y ago

> I remember when Romney was running for president, he kept saying that Russia was a big threat, and that we were underestimating them. That's why Russia didn't want Mitt Romney to become Trump's secretary of state: "Weeks after Donald Trump was elected president, Russia-backed online “trolls” flooded social media to try to block Mitt Romney from securing a top job in the incoming administration, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows."[1] "Putin’s former secretory, Igor Sechin counts Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s secretary of state, as a close personal friend, after the two men — during Tillerson’s time as Exxon Mobil CEO — struck a 2012 agreement that entailed investments by Exxon and Rosneft worth $500bn. When sanctions imposed on Sechin and Rosneft imperilled that deal and banned him from visiting the US, Russia’s response was to lament that he could no longer “ride the roads of the United States on motorcycles with Tillerson”."[2] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-trolls-tried-to-torpedo-mitt-romneys-shot-at-secretary-of-state-1520505000 https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-trolls-tried-to-torpedo... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/dc7d48f8-1c13-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6 https://www.ft.com/content/dc7d48f8-1c13-11e8-aaca-4574d7dab...

secfirstmd 8y ago
On this topic, I really recommend the book by Ronan Farrow: "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"
TheForumTroll 8y ago
"I know it is true because an American paper says Russian did X and Y". I'm not saying it isn't, but WSJ and FT as sources? Really?
- pc86 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you want as sources if two well respected, global news publications don't make the cut.
- fourpacalypse 8y ago
  Those are legit, fairly reliable news sources.
- krn 8y ago
  If you want to understand how Russia works, there are plenty of international sources. "How Russia won the World Cup" by the The Guardian[1] is a one of them. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/14/how-russia-won-the-world-cup https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/14/how-russia-won-...
  - neonate 8y ago
    The Guardian is not a reliable source on this topic. For example, the ludicrous Luke Harding.
    - krn 8y ago
      The Guardian has published more facts about Russia's interference in Brexit and the US presidential election than probably any other newspaper in the world, and has been owned by a non-profit organization since 1936[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  FT is not by any standard an American paper, unless the US annexed either the UK (where it is HQed) or Japan (where it's corporate parent is based) when I wasn't paying attention.
furgooswft13 8y ago
I mean I guess it's possible that a large number of Trump supporters on the Internet would be pretty incensed about the prospect of the literal embodiment of the GOP establishment and #NeverTrump being appointed Secretary of State, especially when Trump presented himself during the campaign as anti-interventionist. But nah, russian trolls.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago

Let's not get too far ahead ourselves in reinterpreting the past. Romney wanted a Russian threat for military spending, specifically another aircraft carrier, and to rally the base; at this time Russia was still the GOP's enemy of choice (how much things change in 5 years). He did turn out to be right, but Im not sure how useful a Cold War mindset of guns and bombs rather than bits and propaganda really is in the 21st century.

cryoshon 8y ago

russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries. they are a "big threat" in the sense that we play opposite them in the game of global chess. put differently: all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa. you could substitute in several other parties like china and say the same thing. this is a good situation for everyone to be in. the thing to remember is that there are many of these inches trading hands at all times. no major player is about to risk trying to grab a mile or inflicting any kind of serious blow that could be overtly attributed to them as an act warranting retribution. remember, for every effort the players make, it opens them up to opportunism by the others who aren't affected by that effort. so, russia is, almost by definition, a threat. but that's business as usual, not cause for alarm. the threat is not an existential one, at present. i'm also of the mind that romney's interpretation of russia being a threat was primarily military in nature rather than political. that interpretation -- implying russia could invade europe or something similar -- was ridiculous at the time, and has been proven false given the difficulty that russia has had in ukraine.

tcbawo 8y ago
I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. Rather than military conquest, it seems the world powers are vying to own the technological walled garden we build for ourselves.
- presscast 8y ago
  >I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum. Nationalism is a choice, one embraced by the current U.S. administration (and others), but it's not the norm: Since WWII the U.S. has been the leading supporter of internationalism.

padseeker 8y ago

If you say something like "This house needs a better security system, or your house will be robbed" and then someone in your own family robs the house, that is not prophecy. It's one thing to see the future. It's totally different when you recognize a threat or a weakness, then actively exploit that very weakness for your own gain, or at least look the other way. When Romney was so prophetic in his analysis, did he factor that his own party would be actively working with them to undermine American Influence over the world? Did he consider that, now that they are such a threat to America, that he himself would prioritize his political party over country?

secfirstmd 8y ago
Yeh he was all ready to sign-up as Secretary of State when Trump dangled it in front of him.
krylon 8y ago
> When Romney was so prophetic in his analysis, did he factor that his own party would be actively working with them to undermine American Influence over the world? I hate to be that guy, but from the perspective of large parts of the world, "American Influence" could well use some undermining. The USA have played the game of meddling in other countries' internal affairs for over a century, from the very subtle (trade policies, tariffs, etc.) to the rather overt (invading a country and forcefully overthrowing their government). Now it turns out others can play that game, too. It's not as much fun being on the short end of that particular stick, now, is it? Pardon me if I sound cynical, but that is like somebody who beats up their family on a regular basis decrying domestic violence when the wife begins learning Karate and strikes back for a change. If the USA started treating other countries as sovereign nations instead of sorting them into the lackey/enemy buckets, the world might start to look a lot less threatening... /rant
- padseeker 8y ago
  I'm ok with your rant. Whether I agree with your point or not the irrelevant to my point. Can you at least recognize at least a little irony that group that typically advocates the loudest for swinging Uncle Sam's dick around whenever possible seem to be looking the other way when a foreign adversary is undermining our country and in the process diminishing our influence? You know that guy that always yelling about America being number 1, wearing an American flag, living in the greatest and most powerful country in the world, complaining about the UN won't do everything the USA wants whenever it wants? Same person is at least ignoring, and more likely welcoming, Putin's help in getting Trump like GOP politicians elected. And in the process we have less sway with our allies in Europe. It's pretty extraordinary isn't it?

martythemaniak 8y ago

Yes, but did Romney tell warn us of the real danger - a large group of Americans who'll work tirelessly to cover and diminish Russian attacks because it works to their political advantage?

ataturk 8y ago
RMoney is MIC all the way. He's a mouthpiece for the warmongers.

anon08142018 8y ago

Romney also suggested requiring porn filters on every computer sold to protect the children.

spinach 8y ago
They need to be protected somehow. Doesn't seem like that bad of an idea.
- pc86 8y ago
  "Who needs freedom of expression? I'd rather avoid a thirty second conversation about sex with my children."
  - NDizzle 8y ago
    30 seconds?!
  - 77777777 8y ago
    Porn isn't freedom of expression, it's hate speech as it abuses women by objectifying them and pushing heteronormative beauty standards. Maybe male on male porn is okay but it is probably also hate speech.
    - justaaron 8y ago
      "officer, they abused me by pushing heternormative beauty standards upon me" some people like porn. different people like different porn. some people like to get spanked...
- krapp 8y ago
  I support the idea of content filters for children where appropriate... just not as a matter of law.
deepakhj 8y ago
Honestly we need filters on churches that molest children too.

nostrademons 8y ago

Sort of. Russia is a threat in that they're an expansionist power whose interests are not always aligned with ours, and that their culture is one where you take any advantage you can and use it to leverage your power. Many Americans don't realize just how small Russia is in terms of the real numbers that matter. Their GDP is less than half of California's. (You can see why they've been funding Californian secessionist efforts - an independent California is a bigger threat to America than Russia is - but so far these have pitifully low traction amongst actual Californians.) Their population is less than half of the U.S, and is shrinking. Their military is a pale shadow of its Cold War size. Many people have this image of them as the second world superpower, which was always a bit of a mirage, but is doubly false after the breakup of the Soviet Union, which took away half their population and 25% of their land area. There's a certain irony where most Americans think the biggest threat to American hegemony is either Russia, North Korea, or Islamic fundamentalism (the former two of which are bit players with outsize threats, and the latter of which has the organizational & technological sophistication of 200 years ago), while the real threats are either an ascendant China (4x the U.S. population, 60% the GDP and projected to overtake the U.S. by 2029, already the world's largest trading partner) or domestic disturbances that lead to the breakup of the U.S, much the same way the USSR broke up.

smallnamespace 8y ago
> they're an expansionist power That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire. What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like any state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out ~160mm total. Both NATO and the EU have progressively expanded towards the former Soviet bloc since the fall of the USSR. From the West's perspective, this is bringing liberal multiparty democracy and stability to an unstable Eastern Europe. But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years [2]). Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Gr... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/