11 ms·

I can deny it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interferen

by dTal 8y ago

I can deny it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_i... Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave campaign actually came from.

mirimir 8y ago
In seeking to destabilize opponents, a key strategy is sowing domestic discontent. Everyone does it, to the best of their abilities. And in particular, it was a key part of the Cold War. So the US managed to destabilize the Soviet Union. Threats from NATO and strategic nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to spend so much on defense that the civilian economy was destroyed. And yes, corruption and incompetence also played a huge role. Add saturation with VoA messages about the US consumer economy, and the Soviet Union collapsed. And more recently, they messed with Georgia, and finally engineered Ukraine independence. Not to mention Syria. Russia has also sought to destabilize Western Europe and the US. For a long time, it was mainly messages about the communist paradise. And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war, and pushing isolationism. But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I mean, look at RT! And more recently, basically the alt-right, with its overt racist overtones. I don't know the UK situation well, but it's pretty clear that Russia promoted Brexit to destabilize the EU, and so NATO.
- roenxi 8y ago
  What if, instead of foreign influences, you just swap in poor economic management? I mean, China has moved from a position considerably weaker than Russia in its heyday to one that is probably stronger. So whatever mischief you think the US tried, obviously the Chinese have figured out how to deal with it. It seems to have involved a dose of freeish-markets. > And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war This really takes the biscuit. Opposition to war is not evidence of a Russian plot, it is evidence of common sense. Without even considering if the Vietnam war made a lick of sense, any healthy democracy should at a minimum have some protests when it engages in a war of aggression. > But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I don't think this affects your main point, but irony here is that "Russian Influence" is clearly a conspiracy theory. It might turn out true, as a number of conspiracy theories do, but still. Maybe the Russians have got to you :P
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Re the Vietman War, of course opposition made perfect sense. It was a stupid, misguided adventure. It was driven by the "zero tolerance" standard for accepting communist development, even when in response to legitimate grievances. For Vietnam, that was long-term colonialist repression by the French. So I'm not arguing that the Soviets created the antiwar opposition. But they clearly helped it develop. As I understand it, the main actors were domestic US communists, who were encouraged to join the movement, help train and organize, and so on. I was there, and I was part of it. About Russian-influence conspiracy theory, have you actually watched RT very much? They've been trolling disgruntled Americans for almost 15 years. As subversive as VoA ever was, they've been total straight shooters compared with RT.
solveit 8y ago
You're right of course, but I wonder how much it matters that only 45% of the voting population would have voted leave without interference as opposed to 52% (numbers pulled out of thin air). For interference (or a freak event, or weather, or anything really) to be able to push the results over the edge, the society as a whole has to be fairly close anyway. This is also what I say to the Americans who insist Trump doesn't represent America because Clinton won the popular vote. Yeah, technically correct, but it doesn't really change how I view the American people.
- mulletbum 8y ago
  How do you view us?
  - nindalf 8y ago
    As bullies, tbh. Reading the history of American foreign policy, it’s difficult to see it otherwise. It’s one long list of screwing other countries to serve the interests of the American people. That list contains a lot of bungled operations so the goals weren’t achieved some of the time. America has had 0 issues propping up brutal, venal, self-serving dictators if it meant benefit to America. Examples include Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan. These are the ones I can name off hand. At the same time, American leaders are quick to get on their high horse talking about the values of democracy. Talk is cheap though. Even after all that, our view of America dropped precipitously with the election of Donald Trump. I think it’s safe to say that a democracy elects people who embody the electorate. You know what Trump is like. That’s how we think of you (as a whole) right now. However, as a great man once said “some, I assume, are good people”. If you’d like to learn more about the misadventures of America in the Middle East in particular check out The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan. The last few chapters cover the 20th and 21st centuries.
    - MarsAscendant 8y ago
      Is that Americans as a nation? Americans as a state? Americans as people? Americans as the leaders that claim to represent those people?
asabjorn 8y ago
It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia, and any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot. It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive tendencies. It is interesting that all opposition to the predominant narrative really should be better informed, and listen to the ones that know better.
- chillwaves 8y ago
  Do you have any actual facts or positions to take? The people who believe Donald Trump are listening to a well confirmed liar, who makes promises that are not even possible to keep. How is it working out for his supporters? Is mining on the rise againt? US steel too? I assume the trade deficit has been neutralized? And how is Brexit going for the Leave group? I am asking do you have concrete grievances or is this just swipe at a faceless elite for daring to know better?
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    How do we know that we in the elites that have been given ideology instead of a classic humanities education, taught what to think instead of how, and to become practiced in ignoring what our mind as well as eyes tell us is not worse off?
- kodablah 8y ago
  > It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia I wouldn't say it's in opposition to globalism or always blamed on Russia. I'd rephrase it as, "It is interesting how any movement in opposition to [what the most vocal want] is caused by [election fraud] and [uninformed voters]." It's actually not that interesting though, it's an attempt to rationalize dissonance. Often based on facts with little evidence of effect. Such facts are uncovered, easily in most cases, by those searching to find them which is why the problems only appear to apply to the victors.
- mirimir 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
quantummkv 8y ago
I am tired of this whole blame the Russians for OUR stupidity and our faults. Unless the Russians sent armed thugs to the polling station to force you to vote for Brexit/Trump/<insert enemy here> at gunpoint, the fault lies with you and you alone. Acknowledge that. Blaming the Russians to avoid having to face the uncomfortable truth is only going to hurt you in the long run. Avoid that while you still can.
sbmthakur 8y ago
You make it look like the 'stay' campaign is not funded externally[1]. Obama had openly asked Britishers to vote "stay"[2]. I am not sure about Britain(or the West). But in most of the sovereign nations, this would be considered as foreign interference. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soro... 2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-eu-britain-brexit-160422042549023.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-eu-britain-brex...
- anarchitect 8y ago
  You’ve linked to an article about Soros advocating a second referendum, not funding the Remain campaign. Meanwhile, the Leave.EU campaign is being investigated for receiving funding from “impermissible sources”.
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  Ignorant dalit.
collyw 8y ago
Yes, just like they won the US election as well. Those guys sure are good at marketing considering the relatively minimal sums they spend. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/
- nicky0 8y ago
  Do you think the entirety of Russia's efforts to destabilise the US amounts to a few Facbook ads?

by dTal 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

In seeking to destabilize opponents, a key strategy is sowing domestic discontent. Everyone does it, to the best of their abilities. And in particular, it was a key part of the Cold War. So the US managed to destabilize the Soviet Union. Threats from NATO and strategic nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to spend so much on defense that the civilian economy was destroyed. And yes, corruption and incompetence also played a huge role. Add saturation with VoA messages about the US consumer economy, and the Soviet Union collapsed. And more recently, they messed with Georgia, and finally engineered Ukraine independence. Not to mention Syria. Russia has also sought to destabilize Western Europe and the US. For a long time, it was mainly messages about the communist paradise. And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war, and pushing isolationism. But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I mean, look at RT! And more recently, basically the alt-right, with its overt racist overtones. I don't know the UK situation well, but it's pretty clear that Russia promoted Brexit to destabilize the EU, and so NATO.

roenxi 8y ago
What if, instead of foreign influences, you just swap in poor economic management? I mean, China has moved from a position considerably weaker than Russia in its heyday to one that is probably stronger. So whatever mischief you think the US tried, obviously the Chinese have figured out how to deal with it. It seems to have involved a dose of freeish-markets. > And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war This really takes the biscuit. Opposition to war is not evidence of a Russian plot, it is evidence of common sense. Without even considering if the Vietnam war made a lick of sense, any healthy democracy should at a minimum have some protests when it engages in a war of aggression. > But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I don't think this affects your main point, but irony here is that "Russian Influence" is clearly a conspiracy theory. It might turn out true, as a number of conspiracy theories do, but still. Maybe the Russians have got to you :P
- mirimir 8y ago
  Re the Vietman War, of course opposition made perfect sense. It was a stupid, misguided adventure. It was driven by the "zero tolerance" standard for accepting communist development, even when in response to legitimate grievances. For Vietnam, that was long-term colonialist repression by the French. So I'm not arguing that the Soviets created the antiwar opposition. But they clearly helped it develop. As I understand it, the main actors were domestic US communists, who were encouraged to join the movement, help train and organize, and so on. I was there, and I was part of it. About Russian-influence conspiracy theory, have you actually watched RT very much? They've been trolling disgruntled Americans for almost 15 years. As subversive as VoA ever was, they've been total straight shooters compared with RT.

solveit 8y ago

You're right of course, but I wonder how much it matters that only 45% of the voting population would have voted leave without interference as opposed to 52% (numbers pulled out of thin air). For interference (or a freak event, or weather, or anything really) to be able to push the results over the edge, the society as a whole has to be fairly close anyway. This is also what I say to the Americans who insist Trump doesn't represent America because Clinton won the popular vote. Yeah, technically correct, but it doesn't really change how I view the American people.

mulletbum 8y ago
How do you view us?
- nindalf 8y ago
  As bullies, tbh. Reading the history of American foreign policy, it’s difficult to see it otherwise. It’s one long list of screwing other countries to serve the interests of the American people. That list contains a lot of bungled operations so the goals weren’t achieved some of the time. America has had 0 issues propping up brutal, venal, self-serving dictators if it meant benefit to America. Examples include Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan. These are the ones I can name off hand. At the same time, American leaders are quick to get on their high horse talking about the values of democracy. Talk is cheap though. Even after all that, our view of America dropped precipitously with the election of Donald Trump. I think it’s safe to say that a democracy elects people who embody the electorate. You know what Trump is like. That’s how we think of you (as a whole) right now. However, as a great man once said “some, I assume, are good people”. If you’d like to learn more about the misadventures of America in the Middle East in particular check out The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan. The last few chapters cover the 20th and 21st centuries.
  - MarsAscendant 8y ago
    Is that Americans as a nation? Americans as a state? Americans as people? Americans as the leaders that claim to represent those people?

asabjorn 8y ago

It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia, and any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot. It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive tendencies. It is interesting that all opposition to the predominant narrative really should be better informed, and listen to the ones that know better.

chillwaves 8y ago
Do you have any actual facts or positions to take? The people who believe Donald Trump are listening to a well confirmed liar, who makes promises that are not even possible to keep. How is it working out for his supporters? Is mining on the rise againt? US steel too? I assume the trade deficit has been neutralized? And how is Brexit going for the Leave group? I am asking do you have concrete grievances or is this just swipe at a faceless elite for daring to know better?
- asabjorn 8y ago
  How do we know that we in the elites that have been given ideology instead of a classic humanities education, taught what to think instead of how, and to become practiced in ignoring what our mind as well as eyes tell us is not worse off?
kodablah 8y ago
> It is interesting how any movement in opposition to globalism is caused by Russia I wouldn't say it's in opposition to globalism or always blamed on Russia. I'd rephrase it as, "It is interesting how any movement in opposition to [what the most vocal want] is caused by [election fraud] and [uninformed voters]." It's actually not that interesting though, it's an attempt to rationalize dissonance. Often based on facts with little evidence of effect. Such facts are uncovered, easily in most cases, by those searching to find them which is why the problems only appear to apply to the victors.
mirimir 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

quantummkv 8y ago

I am tired of this whole blame the Russians for OUR stupidity and our faults. Unless the Russians sent armed thugs to the polling station to force you to vote for Brexit/Trump/<insert enemy here> at gunpoint, the fault lies with you and you alone. Acknowledge that. Blaming the Russians to avoid having to face the uncomfortable truth is only going to hurt you in the long run. Avoid that while you still can.

sbmthakur 8y ago

You make it look like the 'stay' campaign is not funded externally[1]. Obama had openly asked Britishers to vote "stay"[2]. I am not sure about Britain(or the West). But in most of the sovereign nations, this would be considered as foreign interference. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soro... 2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-eu-britain-brexit-160422042549023.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-eu-britain-brex...

anarchitect 8y ago
You’ve linked to an article about Soros advocating a second referendum, not funding the Remain campaign. Meanwhile, the Leave.EU campaign is being investigated for receiving funding from “impermissible sources”.
throwaway-hn123 8y ago
Ignorant dalit.

collyw 8y ago

Yes, just like they won the US election as well. Those guys sure are good at marketing considering the relatively minimal sums they spend. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/

nicky0 8y ago
Do you think the entirety of Russia's efforts to destabilise the US amounts to a few Facbook ads?