3 ms·

David Sacks is a funny guy who peddles Russian talking points. Now I actually understand why he's possibly doing that but it still astonishes me how shortsighte

by genman 2y ago

David Sacks is a funny guy who peddles Russian talking points. Now I actually understand why he's possibly doing that but it still astonishes me how shortsighted this thinking is.

dtquad 2y ago
It's not even Russian talking points. The version of Russia that American right-wingers love doesn't exist in real-life nor in Russian propaganda. Putin's speeches call Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist. The bullshit excuses about NATO enlargement and biolabs were entirely made up by American right-wingers and only later picked up by Russian propaganda. Russia's own propaganda is more honest about Russia than the way American right-wingers like David Sacks portay Russia.
- racional 2y ago
  Not true for NATO expansion argument, which has very deep roots, going back to the 1999 NATO-Yugoslavia war specifically (which is when US-Russia relations started heading south generally). As regards NATO-Ukraine, it seems to have picked up with the Orange Revolution around 2004-2005. Then sealed with the 2008 Munich Security Conference. In any case originating from the Russian side. Most right wingers probably couldn't have found Ukraine on the map back then. The "biolabs" argument may have started with the Feb 24th invasion, as there were Russian press releases dated suspiciously close to the onset of the operation (suggesting they may have been part of a pre-orchestrated campaign, as opposed to "discoveries" on the ground as they were made out to be). Then again - they're of a refined category of bullshit that it hardly seems to matter. How can anyone believe that stuff?
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Yeah, I don't think it's accurate to blame certain US blocs for originating most of that bullshit, even if they're obviously re-broadcasting it.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  It's weird to imagine how someone might respond 30 years ago if you told them the US Republican party would be indifferent to Russia invading its neighbors while their presidential candidate was floating plans for abandoning NATO. I'm not sure if that means truth is stranger than fiction, or that 30 years is just a rather long time, or both.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    That wouldn't be weird at all. The Republican party has many different factions. It would be weird to imagine the neoconservatives advocating those positions but the neoconservatives do not advocate those positions. And the neoconservatives are leaving the Republican party. It wouldn't be weird to imagine the paleoconservatives advocating those positions - sounds like typical Pat Buchanan policy positions.

by genman 2y ago

David Sacks is a funny guy who peddles Russian talking points. Now I actually understand why he's possibly doing that but it still astonishes me how shortsighted this thinking is.

dtquad 2y ago

It's not even Russian talking points. The version of Russia that American right-wingers love doesn't exist in real-life nor in Russian propaganda. Putin's speeches call Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist. The bullshit excuses about NATO enlargement and biolabs were entirely made up by American right-wingers and only later picked up by Russian propaganda. Russia's own propaganda is more honest about Russia than the way American right-wingers like David Sacks portay Russia.

racional 2y ago
Not true for NATO expansion argument, which has very deep roots, going back to the 1999 NATO-Yugoslavia war specifically (which is when US-Russia relations started heading south generally). As regards NATO-Ukraine, it seems to have picked up with the Orange Revolution around 2004-2005. Then sealed with the 2008 Munich Security Conference. In any case originating from the Russian side. Most right wingers probably couldn't have found Ukraine on the map back then. The "biolabs" argument may have started with the Feb 24th invasion, as there were Russian press releases dated suspiciously close to the onset of the operation (suggesting they may have been part of a pre-orchestrated campaign, as opposed to "discoveries" on the ground as they were made out to be). Then again - they're of a refined category of bullshit that it hardly seems to matter. How can anyone believe that stuff?
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Yeah, I don't think it's accurate to blame certain US blocs for originating most of that bullshit, even if they're obviously re-broadcasting it.
Terr_ 2y ago
It's weird to imagine how someone might respond 30 years ago if you told them the US Republican party would be indifferent to Russia invading its neighbors while their presidential candidate was floating plans for abandoning NATO. I'm not sure if that means truth is stranger than fiction, or that 30 years is just a rather long time, or both.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  That wouldn't be weird at all. The Republican party has many different factions. It would be weird to imagine the neoconservatives advocating those positions but the neoconservatives do not advocate those positions. And the neoconservatives are leaving the Republican party. It wouldn't be weird to imagine the paleoconservatives advocating those positions - sounds like typical Pat Buchanan policy positions.