8 ms·

A part of me suspects that the proxy war the US is waging against Russia to decimate the Russian military and force a regime change is motivated by getting Russ

A part of me suspects that the proxy war the US is waging against Russia to decimate the Russian military and force a regime change is motivated by getting Russia under the control of western IP, financial, and other regulation.

bawolff 4y ago
Why would you assume secret copyright interests, when the open geopolitical interests are so blatent? It'd be like if someone made a million dollars, and you accused them that its all a front to launder ten dollars. It doesn't make sense.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  My answer is complex. >Why would you assume secret copyright interests I did not. I said "western IP, financial, and other regulation.". That includes a lot but in all amounts to essentially geopolitical control. However, this being a thread about copyright and this being a technology website I mentioned copyright and I think copyright laws and regulations are vastly more important than you are implying. The article mentions trade agreements that can force ISPs to block web pages. As it stands right now, the internet is decentralized but single government control of the internet is increasingly becoming apparent. Western nations share copyright laws which ultimately centralizes the internet across many different people and countries. So, for example, ISP web site blocking can be performed across many different ISPs globally with similar regulation and controls in all these different jurisdictions. (edit: especially at the behest of US based corporations) I think this is ultimately harmful for internet users especially because it can be associated with censorship. Previously, the decentralized nature of the internet made it harder for any single entity to control it, however, it is looking increasingly feasible to do so. So I agree with the parent commenter and add that it is actually beneficial for the internet if Russia enables pirating and is not under US/western internet regulations. Having alternatives is good for the internet and I think that's a very important point.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I don't doubt that copyright serves to cement usa's geopolitical position. However on a scale of things that maintain usa's geopolitical position, copyright is kind of minor comparatively. Copyright is the long game soft power sort of thing. Ukraine is the short game. USA needs to show the world that if bad things happen to a country because they are friendly to usa, america wont let it go unremarked. If they don't, other countries will take note, and america loses its pax americana position. The ukraine thing is a rather direct challenge of america's hegemonic position. America is responding to it because its either that, or they lose their world position (or a step in that direction). Im not saying america is above the type of long term power games you suggest, just that in this case they have a much more pressing reason to be involved, and i don't think secret conspiracy reasons make sense when their hand is basically being forced by direct means.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Copyright is actually hard power, like all other economic considerations. Without intellectual property so massively favouring wealthy countries, the US wouldn't be the hegemon, and I mean that literally. IP is hard power, and it is very major indeed. Imagine a world where Chinese, Russian, Indian and Japanese companies get to sell their goods worldwide without a single care about American patents? If that happened tomorrow, just for one example, BYD would probably become the largest car company in the world (because they have the cheapest and most reliable batteries, but only in China due to IP laws around the chemistry). It would be a direct and immediate challenge to the American hegemony.
unmole 4y ago
It's fascinating how people will come up with bizzare conspiracy theories to fit their insignificant pet causes into much larger events.
- rpmisms 4y ago
  You're aggressively dismissing an off-hand thought. That makes me far more curious about who told you not to think about it.
  - unmole 4y ago
    > who told you not to think about it. The united coalition of Lizardmen and Freemasons, funded by George Soros. Bill Gates declined to invest.
    - rpmisms 4y ago
      I'm being serious. Soros only funds prosecutorial races, which is dangerous, but not as dangerous as lizardfolx.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Do not reply to this poster which is applying rule 5 of disinformation: Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrighele 4y ago
_Algernon_ 4y ago
>proxy war the US is waging You mean the war of aggression that Russia is waging against Ukraine?
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  No, the US's response has significantly changed since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the point where regime change looks like it's in the cards. There are very clear corporate and regulatory interests in a Russian regime that complies with western governments. If lobbying efforts can cause site blocking in trade agreements, why wouldn't that be the case for regime change negotiations?
- handsclean 4y ago
  Well yes, if the US were one of those parties then it wouldn’t be a “proxy” war. Assisting one side without being directly involved is the definition of a proxy war. Proxy wars aren’t necessarily aggressive or wrong, either.
EB-Barrington 4y ago
Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is waging war against Ukraine. Ukraine is defending itself against Russia. These facts are very straightforward.
oblak 4y ago
I think it's not about regime change as it is about slowly tearing them apart so that they can consume the remains. Russia is enormous and most of it is untouched.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> A part of me suspects that the proxy war the US is waging against Russia to decimate the Russian military and force a regime change is motivated by getting Russia under the control of western IP, financial, and other regulation. To the extent that it is approximately accurate to describe such a war as existing, it is motivated not arouns looping Russia into Western IP, financial, etc., regulatory regimes, but around dealing with the security threat represented by actions like the Russian invasion of Moldova (1990-present), Georgia (2008-present), and Ukraine (2014-present), and, most particularly, the massive escalation of the last that occurred this year.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  I am sure that is part of the motivation but I am totally unconvinced that is all of it. Russia's independence from and defiance of the western law enforcement agencies, in things like money laundering, building a SWIFT alternative, cybercrime, piracy, and digital interference, among many others, are things that I think the US would like to do away with. Those aren't strictly security concerns but could still be defined that way. It would not surprise me at all if the US saw an opportunity for regime change that is more friendly to its own interests. Regime change seems to be a goal at present but has not been made official. I stated in another post that I felt that a centralized internet under more or less the same western laws globally, with exceptions like China, was not good for the internet which is why I agreed with the parent comment. That was my main point: Russian defiance of copyright laws is good for the internet. I believe that is not a view shared by most governments. I am less interested in war specifics.

bawolff 4y ago

Why would you assume secret copyright interests, when the open geopolitical interests are so blatent? It'd be like if someone made a million dollars, and you accused them that its all a front to launder ten dollars. It doesn't make sense.

onetimeusename 4y ago
My answer is complex. >Why would you assume secret copyright interests I did not. I said "western IP, financial, and other regulation.". That includes a lot but in all amounts to essentially geopolitical control. However, this being a thread about copyright and this being a technology website I mentioned copyright and I think copyright laws and regulations are vastly more important than you are implying. The article mentions trade agreements that can force ISPs to block web pages. As it stands right now, the internet is decentralized but single government control of the internet is increasingly becoming apparent. Western nations share copyright laws which ultimately centralizes the internet across many different people and countries. So, for example, ISP web site blocking can be performed across many different ISPs globally with similar regulation and controls in all these different jurisdictions. (edit: especially at the behest of US based corporations) I think this is ultimately harmful for internet users especially because it can be associated with censorship. Previously, the decentralized nature of the internet made it harder for any single entity to control it, however, it is looking increasingly feasible to do so. So I agree with the parent commenter and add that it is actually beneficial for the internet if Russia enables pirating and is not under US/western internet regulations. Having alternatives is good for the internet and I think that's a very important point.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I don't doubt that copyright serves to cement usa's geopolitical position. However on a scale of things that maintain usa's geopolitical position, copyright is kind of minor comparatively. Copyright is the long game soft power sort of thing. Ukraine is the short game. USA needs to show the world that if bad things happen to a country because they are friendly to usa, america wont let it go unremarked. If they don't, other countries will take note, and america loses its pax americana position. The ukraine thing is a rather direct challenge of america's hegemonic position. America is responding to it because its either that, or they lose their world position (or a step in that direction). Im not saying america is above the type of long term power games you suggest, just that in this case they have a much more pressing reason to be involved, and i don't think secret conspiracy reasons make sense when their hand is basically being forced by direct means.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Copyright is actually hard power, like all other economic considerations. Without intellectual property so massively favouring wealthy countries, the US wouldn't be the hegemon, and I mean that literally. IP is hard power, and it is very major indeed. Imagine a world where Chinese, Russian, Indian and Japanese companies get to sell their goods worldwide without a single care about American patents? If that happened tomorrow, just for one example, BYD would probably become the largest car company in the world (because they have the cheapest and most reliable batteries, but only in China due to IP laws around the chemistry). It would be a direct and immediate challenge to the American hegemony.

unmole 4y ago

It's fascinating how people will come up with bizzare conspiracy theories to fit their insignificant pet causes into much larger events.

rpmisms 4y ago
You're aggressively dismissing an off-hand thought. That makes me far more curious about who told you not to think about it.
- unmole 4y ago
  > who told you not to think about it. The united coalition of Lizardmen and Freemasons, funded by George Soros. Bill Gates declined to invest.
  - rpmisms 4y ago
    I'm being serious. Soros only funds prosecutorial races, which is dangerous, but not as dangerous as lizardfolx.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Do not reply to this poster which is applying rule 5 of disinformation: Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mrighele 4y ago

_Algernon_ 4y ago

>proxy war the US is waging You mean the war of aggression that Russia is waging against Ukraine?

onetimeusename 4y ago
No, the US's response has significantly changed since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the point where regime change looks like it's in the cards. There are very clear corporate and regulatory interests in a Russian regime that complies with western governments. If lobbying efforts can cause site blocking in trade agreements, why wouldn't that be the case for regime change negotiations?
handsclean 4y ago
Well yes, if the US were one of those parties then it wouldn’t be a “proxy” war. Assisting one side without being directly involved is the definition of a proxy war. Proxy wars aren’t necessarily aggressive or wrong, either.

EB-Barrington 4y ago

Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is waging war against Ukraine. Ukraine is defending itself against Russia. These facts are very straightforward.

oblak 4y ago

I think it's not about regime change as it is about slowly tearing them apart so that they can consume the remains. Russia is enormous and most of it is untouched.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> A part of me suspects that the proxy war the US is waging against Russia to decimate the Russian military and force a regime change is motivated by getting Russia under the control of western IP, financial, and other regulation. To the extent that it is approximately accurate to describe such a war as existing, it is motivated not arouns looping Russia into Western IP, financial, etc., regulatory regimes, but around dealing with the security threat represented by actions like the Russian invasion of Moldova (1990-present), Georgia (2008-present), and Ukraine (2014-present), and, most particularly, the massive escalation of the last that occurred this year.

onetimeusename 4y ago
I am sure that is part of the motivation but I am totally unconvinced that is all of it. Russia's independence from and defiance of the western law enforcement agencies, in things like money laundering, building a SWIFT alternative, cybercrime, piracy, and digital interference, among many others, are things that I think the US would like to do away with. Those aren't strictly security concerns but could still be defined that way. It would not surprise me at all if the US saw an opportunity for regime change that is more friendly to its own interests. Regime change seems to be a goal at present but has not been made official. I stated in another post that I felt that a centralized internet under more or less the same western laws globally, with exceptions like China, was not good for the internet which is why I agreed with the parent comment. That was my main point: Russian defiance of copyright laws is good for the internet. I believe that is not a view shared by most governments. I am less interested in war specifics.