12 ms·

Seems like a difference without a distinction, and I'm not even sure it's correct. If he's acting in the interest of Russia, he's a Russian agent.

mLuby 7y ago
The distinction is responsibility. If he were operating under orders from Russia, Russia bears ultimate responsibility for his actions. If they have no control over him and his actions merely benefit them, he bears responsibility for his own actions.
not_a_cop75 7y ago
Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle. Oh please, you're the one being ridiculous. I think we all know there's a line between farming for the good of civilization and actively working to push an agenda. C'mon.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    I suppose that all the South African farmers that moved to Russia to avoid getting killed over politics by savages are also Russian Agents. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russia-sa-white-farmers/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russ...
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      If the subsequently worked at the behest of the Russian goverment to push their agenda, yes. Honestly are you even reading what I'm typing?
      - not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Well, then I suppose it was indeed a PR stunt for the Russians to accept South African farmers, and they are according to your logic indeed Russian Agents! That is assuming a PR campaign pushes an agenda, and I would argue it does.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        There is a difference between and unwitting pawn, especially in a circumstance like that, and someone who acts with full knowledge as to what they're doing. I don't understand why this is difficult.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        It's never an either/or. you're presenting a false dilemma.

mLuby 7y ago

The distinction is responsibility. If he were operating under orders from Russia, Russia bears ultimate responsibility for his actions. If they have no control over him and his actions merely benefit them, he bears responsibility for his own actions.

not_a_cop75 7y ago

Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle.

EpicEng 7y ago
>Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle. Oh please, you're the one being ridiculous. I think we all know there's a line between farming for the good of civilization and actively working to push an agenda. C'mon.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  I suppose that all the South African farmers that moved to Russia to avoid getting killed over politics by savages are also Russian Agents. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russia-sa-white-farmers/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russ...
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    If the subsequently worked at the behest of the Russian goverment to push their agenda, yes. Honestly are you even reading what I'm typing?
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      Well, then I suppose it was indeed a PR stunt for the Russians to accept South African farmers, and they are according to your logic indeed Russian Agents! That is assuming a PR campaign pushes an agenda, and I would argue it does.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        There is a difference between and unwitting pawn, especially in a circumstance like that, and someone who acts with full knowledge as to what they're doing. I don't understand why this is difficult.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        It's never an either/or. you're presenting a false dilemma.