4 ms·

Yelzin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_election#US_interference_in_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_e

Yelzin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_election#US_interference_in_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_elec... It ain't even close.

lsc 8y ago
So, I don't really mind getting downvoted for asking questions that make me look ignorant, as I was in this case. But when someone else answers the question, (read the rest of the thread) there's no need to answer it again.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> > Can you give a cold war example of America effecting who ran russia that is as dramatic as the Trump story in the other direction? > Yelzin. That's...not a Cold War example.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  And it wasn't called "Russia" during the cold war; I interpolated. The US interfering in the 1996 Russian election to install 'our guy' stands as a preposterous, ridiculous overt interference with Russian politics on a scale which the Russians can never hope to achieve.
  - lsc 8y ago
    What I find super interesting is that some people in the USA seem to think that evidence that the US has attacked the elections of the USSR and Russia in the past means that we somehow shouldn't fight when the reverse happens. I mean, if you accept that we got Yeltsin elected, well, in a real way, we dissolved the USSR, making Russia dramatically less powerful. (And yes, I agree that's dramatically more severe than anything Trump has done so far.) I am not going to vote for any politician who thinks allowing the same sort of thing to happen to the USA is in any way okay. (I mean, from a completely neutral sense, I get what they are saying... but I'm not completely neutral; I don't think any of us are. Leaving aside that I think you can make a reasonable argument that the USSR was, even for those who lived there, a bad thing, (though I'm obviously biased on that point.) I do think it's reasonable to expect your political leaders to take steps to prevent your country from being taken over by a foreign power.) Edit: neutrality and clarity
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      You have an interesting parser. How do you feel about the interference of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China in US elections? Because they've certainly subverted US democracy a lot more than the integral of all Russian/Soviet interference with US elections over all time (China being a very junior partner, but still pretty obviously doing so in ways the Russians don't). Shucks, any one of them interfered more in the last election more than the Russians ever have.
      - lsc 8y ago
        On this, we disagree about the evidence. It appears that there is a federal investigator on the case, so I suggest we watch what comes of that.
        scottlocklin 8y ago
        Well, the countries I mention above do seem to have subverted elections in a rather more threatening way; unlike those sinister Russians, they seem to have left rather more evidence, and have subverted democracy so effectively there will never be a federal investigator on the case.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And it wasn't called "Russia" during the cold war Russia was called “Russia” during the Cold War (for that matter, in the West, informally, so, frequently, was the Soviet Union.) > The US interfering in the 1996 Russian election to install 'our guy' “Our guy” had been installed in the Russian Presidency long before he became our guy, while the Russian Federation was still part of the USSR. Whatever interference happened in ’96 wasn't to install anything. > overt interference with Russian politics on a scale which the Russians can never hope to achieve. Well, yeah, overt interference, to even have a hope of not being wildly counterproductive, requires establishing a certain level of goodwill with the target population. There said, the recent Russian covert (though not so much as to withstand much scrutiny) intervention in Western (not merely US) politics has been on a broader scale, and more successful at driving outcomes, than anything either side did, during or after the Cold War, in the 20th Century.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      You're missing out on something: it wasn't considered overt to the Russian people at the time. We subverted Russian democracy. This is all completely documented and non controversial. Unlike the conspiracy theory that $20k in allegedly Russian purchased FB ads (or whatever the insane idea is this week) is why a reality TV star won the presidency.

Yelzin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_election#US_interference_in_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russian_presidential_elec... It ain't even close.

lsc 8y ago

So, I don't really mind getting downvoted for asking questions that make me look ignorant, as I was in this case. But when someone else answers the question, (read the rest of the thread) there's no need to answer it again.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> > Can you give a cold war example of America effecting who ran russia that is as dramatic as the Trump story in the other direction? > Yelzin. That's...not a Cold War example.

scottlocklin 8y ago
And it wasn't called "Russia" during the cold war; I interpolated. The US interfering in the 1996 Russian election to install 'our guy' stands as a preposterous, ridiculous overt interference with Russian politics on a scale which the Russians can never hope to achieve.
- lsc 8y ago
  What I find super interesting is that some people in the USA seem to think that evidence that the US has attacked the elections of the USSR and Russia in the past means that we somehow shouldn't fight when the reverse happens. I mean, if you accept that we got Yeltsin elected, well, in a real way, we dissolved the USSR, making Russia dramatically less powerful. (And yes, I agree that's dramatically more severe than anything Trump has done so far.) I am not going to vote for any politician who thinks allowing the same sort of thing to happen to the USA is in any way okay. (I mean, from a completely neutral sense, I get what they are saying... but I'm not completely neutral; I don't think any of us are. Leaving aside that I think you can make a reasonable argument that the USSR was, even for those who lived there, a bad thing, (though I'm obviously biased on that point.) I do think it's reasonable to expect your political leaders to take steps to prevent your country from being taken over by a foreign power.) Edit: neutrality and clarity
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    You have an interesting parser. How do you feel about the interference of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China in US elections? Because they've certainly subverted US democracy a lot more than the integral of all Russian/Soviet interference with US elections over all time (China being a very junior partner, but still pretty obviously doing so in ways the Russians don't). Shucks, any one of them interfered more in the last election more than the Russians ever have.
    - lsc 8y ago
      On this, we disagree about the evidence. It appears that there is a federal investigator on the case, so I suggest we watch what comes of that.
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        Well, the countries I mention above do seem to have subverted elections in a rather more threatening way; unlike those sinister Russians, they seem to have left rather more evidence, and have subverted democracy so effectively there will never be a federal investigator on the case.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And it wasn't called "Russia" during the cold war Russia was called “Russia” during the Cold War (for that matter, in the West, informally, so, frequently, was the Soviet Union.) > The US interfering in the 1996 Russian election to install 'our guy' “Our guy” had been installed in the Russian Presidency long before he became our guy, while the Russian Federation was still part of the USSR. Whatever interference happened in ’96 wasn't to install anything. > overt interference with Russian politics on a scale which the Russians can never hope to achieve. Well, yeah, overt interference, to even have a hope of not being wildly counterproductive, requires establishing a certain level of goodwill with the target population. There said, the recent Russian covert (though not so much as to withstand much scrutiny) intervention in Western (not merely US) politics has been on a broader scale, and more successful at driving outcomes, than anything either side did, during or after the Cold War, in the 20th Century.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    You're missing out on something: it wasn't considered overt to the Russian people at the time. We subverted Russian democracy. This is all completely documented and non controversial. Unlike the conspiracy theory that $20k in allegedly Russian purchased FB ads (or whatever the insane idea is this week) is why a reality TV star won the presidency.