WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Information/Cyber/russia

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #151  
Old 12-03-2017, 03:46 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default


Also this is an important read:

https://www.stratcomcoe.org/next-pha...are-keir-giles

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-04-2017, 12:42 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
I've literally skimmed a few lines so correct me if I jump the gun here...

Whenever I see Ukraine framed mostly through the event in Crimea it smacks of propaganda.

It seemed to me the problems in Ukraine stem from an elected president's decision to accept a Russian economic programme over an EU one. Do you buy the old popular revolution story? -- seems much more like a Western backed coup which has divided the country, at which point Russia stepped in; I can't see how we would imagine that they wouldn't. In fact, you might say their actions were pretty restrained.

The story always starts with 'Russia's seizure of Crimea', instead of the EU's intervention in Kiev. Aside from that, Russian propaganda is nothing new, propaganda in general is nothing new.

Things like 'a multi-tiered online media operation in which a number of production units produce content consistent with a core message', it's like... uh... yeah... just like EVERYONE else since the dawn of time. Big scoop!
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:35 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

Yes you would be jumping the gun even so your version of the Maidan Revolution isnt that far different than what actually happened. Which is kind of the point of that article I posted. Things only have to be a little skewed. Basically what happened was Yanukovych pulled out of a trade agreement with the EU at the last minute in favor of a deal with Moscow. Protests ensued and then laws were passed making it illegal to protest. Protests continued and then they were fired upon. The rest is history.

But the story of Ukraine starts with the Second Chechen War when the Russian army identified their failure to control the information war.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc.../iwchechen.htm

You would then go to see how they solidified their base, implemented a rudimentary version in their war with Georgia, then Ukraine, finally with Syria and then with the US election and other western elections.

And what you see over the course of these almost two decades is the increasing sophistication and capability of the Russian state to control narrative and the information sphere.

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2...-capabilities/

These are rather large scale implementations but there are hundreds of millions if not billions at this point smaller outlets that work to accomplish the same thing. And thats what people in the IC are screaming about. The problem is that it doesnt get through to the public. Maybe because when there is exposure people skim these things. Maybe because they dont know and dont have the time.

Lets say though that youre right. Propaganda is nothing new. However if propaganda is no longer an element of war but a dimension to be contested should the US or Europe view offensive methods in the info/cyber sphere as acts of war necessitating retaliation in the kinetic sphere?

That question left dangling an immense wealth of literature has been written in the last year (and much is open source! You can read it!) and what Ive written here isnt even a nick on the surface. It is the most dangerous sphere at the moment because so very few people take it seriously and so the vast majority are so very vulnerable to it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-04-2017 at 05:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:00 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Yes you would be jumping the gun even so your version of the Maidan Revolution isnt that far different than what actually happened. Which is kind of the point of that article I posted. Things only have to be a little skewed. Basically what happened was Yanukovych pulled out of a trade agreement with the EU at the last minute in favor of a deal with Moscow. Protests ensued and then laws were passed making it illegal to protest. Protests continued and then they were fired upon. The rest is history.
You don't think there's anything suspicious of this though? -- ie: the EU doesn't get what it wants and shortly after the president is deposed and a pro EU government is set up, heavily funded and supported by the West. What would the West do if confronted with a Russian backed coup on their borders?

You would then go to see how they solidified their base, implemented a rudimentary version in their war with Georgia, then Ukraine, finally with Syria and then with the US election and other western elections.
Just walk me through how Russia is at war with Syria. This is the thing it seems to me this is just a case of who you believe, Russia certainly doesn't consider itself at war with Syria. Syria is its long standing ally.

And what you see over the course of these almost two decades is the increasing sophistication and capability of the Russian state to control narrative and the information sphere.
I'm not sure that we couldn't say this about any major player on the map.

Lets say though that youre right. Propaganda is nothing new. However if propaganda is no longer an element of war but a dimension to be contested should the US or Europe view offensive methods in the info/cyber sphere as acts of war necessitating retaliation in the kinetic sphere?
What sort of retaliation are we talking (in the kinetic sphere)? And what specifically cyber sphere acts wise would warrant a physical response? I mean you'd have to define that, and then give justifications. Personally I don't think we'll ever physically attack Russia unless we absolutely have to (because M.A.D)-- proxy skirmishes are as far as it'll go. So if we're losing cyber wars we'll just have to take that one on the chin.

I think people take propaganda seriously but at the same time we'd be naive to think that these aren't pretty universal tactics. People in general should get used to the idea that news in whatever medium will be skewed to fit an agenda. You can count on news being fake, the only thing you can really hope for is that you're free to say whatever you want.

In unfree countries it's not just that news is fake, it's that real news is banned.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:55 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

You don't think there's anything suspicious of this though? -- ie: the EU doesn't get what it wants and shortly after the president is deposed and a pro EU government is set up, heavily funded and supported by the West. What would the West do if confronted with a Russian backed coup on their borders?

Well thats two different questions. So as to the first I dont find it suspicious because Ukraine had the Orange Revolution back in 2004 and none of the problems (corruption and sovereignty) had been addressed and so were left to fester. Most CIS states managed to break out of Moscow's sphere of influence after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus did not. As far as I was concerned it was only a matter of time. I mean this isnt academic. It was a reaction to Soviet rule. These things do happen naturally if you can ascribe natural processes to nations. The thing to keep in mind is that the people wanted closer relations with the west and Im not talking about just Ukraine. The Baltic states and Poland joined NATO for Christ's sake. They were under the Soviets and the thing to know about the Soviets was that for all its supposed internationalism it was run by Moscow and the same people who ran the Soviet Union now run Russia. So did and does the West encourage states to gravitate towards their model? Yes of course we did and do. I encourage it. Why wouldnt you want to have closer relations with a country thats willing to adopt your value system? Isnt that what we want? Believe it or not western values create stability in the world and thats something worth encouraging.

If you want I can tell you a little about some of the changes that have manifested that I personally have seen in my visits over the years.

To your second question. I have to think about how to answer this. Id want to point first of all that the nature of neighbors makes it unlikely that a coup would ever happen, especially a Russian backed coup. Theyre both large, stable countries. Mexico has a culture alien to Russia there wouldnt be much they could exploit culturally. Furthermore the distances involved would make logistically supporting the usurping government pretty much impossible. That said had you asked me ten years ago if a modernized democracy would sacrifice sovreignty for political advantage I would have chortled but Im eating crow on that right now.

But lets say a coup did happen. The political realities would dictate the response and that is the truth. If the US felt it could reinstate the deposed power they might if the cost wasnt too high or if the new government lacked popular support. If the US felt they could coopt the government they might try for a response outside of military force, they could impose sanctions, refuse diplomatic recognition, they could set up a blockade, they could arm loyalist factions. Theres a million different options and it would depend on the stance of the new government.




Just walk me through how Russia is at war with Syria. This is the thing it seems to me this is just a case of who you believe, Russia certainly doesn't consider itself at war with Syria. Syria is its long standing ally.

No no no thats not what I meant at all. What I meant was the deployment of an increasingly sophisticated information warfare capability. In this case to prop up the Assad regime. I mean its not just offensive it can be defensive too. So youre right Russia isnt at war with Assad its at war with those factions opposing his regime. In the case of those factions it did everything in its power to affiliate them with ISIS and to attack them under that guise.


I'm not sure that we couldn't say this about any major player on the map.

We actually can say this that the West does not do this because our own IC is scrambling to form a cohesive doctrine in response to this. Read a few more reports and it becomes very clear we do not have parity in these spheres, we are far outclassed and with little means to defend ourselves. One of the central security challenges the US is faced with is how to balance first amendment free speech with protecting the public from hostile influence. I remember attending a conference at Duke University on Chinese telecommunications about twelve years ago I think it was and their incipient answer to this was information sovereignty unfortunately for the US we believe in the free flow of information so we cant do that without compromising our values. By undermining the free exchange of ideas free speech is also repressed. I think its the defining challenge of the century.





What sort of retaliation are we talking (in the kinetic sphere)? And what specifically cyber sphere acts wise would warrant a physical response? I mean you'd have to define that, and then give justifications. Personally I don't think we'll ever physically attack Russia unless we absolutely have to (because M.A.D)-- proxy skirmishes are as far as it'll go. So if we're losing cyber wars we'll just have to take that one on the chin.


Kinetic retaliation is traditional warfare. Specifically I would say that an attack on critical infrastructure would warrant such a response. So an attack on any of these: https://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors

I think we need to expand our critical infrastructure to include elections on all levels of government.

But heres what cyberattacks could do. Say you target the electric grid and a hospital loses power and people die as a result. A cyberattack could be directed towards a nuclear power plant causing it to meltdown. You could disrupt manufacturing, you could sabotage chemical plants, steal military technology, corporate secrets, you could cause mass derailments with trains, you could hack GPS satellites used by the military thereby hobbling our navy. Our missiles are directed by GPS. You disrupt their guidance systems you render them useless. You can disrupt communications on pretty much any level. Imagine if you couldnt get gas for your car how soon would chaos ensue. Imagine in the middle of winter you no longer have gas to heat your house. You could target nuclear launch facilities thereby reducing our ability to retaliate in the event of a nuclear exchange. You could attack communications satellites, isolating US bases, disrupting C4ISR, delaying all response times to any world events. You could run a disinformation campaign in a hostile country so that they elect a pro-russia candidate. Thats the smallest sliver of things its goes far beyond this.

As far as I can tell we have already far surpassed the threshold for war. Russia operates in a gray zone between war and peace. You might be interested in reading about the Gerasimov doctrine. Valery Vasiliyvich Gerasimov

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...228_art008.pdf

I think people take propaganda seriously but at the same time we'd be naive to think that these aren't pretty universal tactics. People in general should get used to the idea that news in whatever medium will be skewed to fit an agenda. You can count on news being fake, the only thing you can really hope for is that you're free to say whatever you want.

People should not get used to this idea. We havent had to before and there is no damn reason we should settle for something less now. In that first article you skimmed their doctrine rests on you maintaining that exact cycnical attitude. If there is no truth then there is no reason to abide by even the most basic tenets of human decency. You can indulge in whatever depravity you like and if you have enough public support youll survive. That cannot be the way this country ends.

In unfree countries it's not just that news is fake, it's that real news is banned.

You dont need to ban real news just drown it in fake news. Whats really the practical difference? As far as I can tell the two are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-05-2017, 03:30 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Well thats two different questions. So as to the first I dont find it suspicious because Ukraine had the Orange Revolution back in 2004 and none of the problems (corruption and sovereignty) had been addressed and so were left to fester. Most CIS states managed to break out of Moscow's sphere of influence after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus did not. As far as I was concerned it was only a matter of time. I mean this isnt academic. It was a reaction to Soviet rule. These things do happen naturally if you can ascribe natural processes to nations. The thing to keep in mind is that the people wanted closer relations with the west and Im not talking about just Ukraine. The Baltic states and Poland joined NATO for Christ's sake. They were under the Soviets and the thing to know about the Soviets was that for all its supposed internationalism it was run by Moscow and the same people who ran the Soviet Union now run Russia. So did and does the West encourage states to gravitate towards their model? Yes of course we did and do. I encourage it. Why wouldnt you want to have closer relations with a country thats willing to adopt your value system? Isnt that what we want? Believe it or not western values create stability in the world and thats something worth encouraging.

So firstly apologies for not addressing the whole post. I think it might be useful to keep things succinct and stick to this central point.

You have two versions.

One which you seem to wholly endorse without any room for nuance and complexity and one which presumably you completely dismiss as fake.

Russian version

So Ukraine has been part of Russia for a lot longer than Ukraine has been an independent state (100's of years) -- and large sections of the population are ethnically Russian, including Crimeans.

Russia has an agreement with Ukraine to have a military presence in Crimea which invalidates the notion of an 'invasion'.

Protestors were routinely paid to enact violence in Maidan. And the West bankrolled the new regime with the ultimate goal of setting up more US military bases in the region and extending the US/NATO sphere of influence.

Ukraine is corrupt. But a protest against corruption with the aim of becoming part of the EU is pretty funny when the EU admits that some 161Bn is lost to corruption in the EU annually. Ukraine has just jumped out of the frying pan into the fire -- and the new regime includes known criminals and fascists.

There were equally legitimate pro Russian demonstrations in the east and the south. This would suggest a popular revolution is straying from the truth, and rather that the state is deeply divided and explains the subsequent battles between agents of the new regime and 'pro Russian separatists'.

Now as a westerner you pretty much don't hear anything about this. In fact Ukraine was just not on the news for much longer after regime change. That's because each side's version is almost the polar opposite. For me I know the stakes are high for each side to be as biased as possible so I see no need to accept either as gospel and usually synthesise the two to get something closer to the truth.

For me the reason why you can't just storm in and take over when a decision doesn't go your way in borne out in the subsequent events, ie: civil war -- or something close to it. You're going to have to find diplomatic/democratic solutions to disputes -- that's how we do it in the West right?
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 12-05-2017 at 03:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-05-2017, 06:24 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

Edit: Before you respond to this post Id much rather hear your thoughts on retaliation to cyber attacks.



Well the easiest reason for my endorsement of a certain version of events is that the opposing version of events is demonstrably false and I dislike this restriction of events because if you focus on one event you fail to see the larger pattern taking place. Youre always allowed to say this is an anomaly. And its not. But for now Ill play ball.

So lets talk about Crimea. Yes Russia did have an agreement for a naval base there. However before Yanukovych was even outsed the little green men were planning their takeover. They seized government buildings, cut off all communications with the outside world, and a held a referendum for independence at gunpoint then sought to be annexed by Russia to which Russia agreed.

Here is the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ian_Federation I encourage you to check out the citations. Theres over 200 of them. Now Russia denied all involvement in the events leading up to the annexation but Putin later came out and admitted he had ordered Crimea to be taken weeks before:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226

Here is him saying it in person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8AMsRx2jjY

Now to your definition of invasion. What Russia did in Crimea would be something akin to American troops in Guantanamo Bay going out seizing everything from Guantanamo city to Las Tunas then forcing the city councils to hold referendums at gunpoint on independence from Cuba. We have an agreement to hold the Bay so by your definition that is not an invasion. Especially since the square mileage between Crimea and that stretch of the island is comparable.

But lets go for a more subtle example. Lets take Russia's claim that they havent interfered in the Donbas Basin. That they have no troops there. Well here is the T72-B3 in Ukraine, a non-export Russian model:

http://sled-vzayt.livejournal.com/4624.html

Compare the Ukrainian model T-72.

This the T72-B3

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGDYzD0XsAAH1mf.jpg

Or this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213

Or how about the fact that those fucking idiots in uniform keep posting selfies of themselves in Ukrainian territory on Vkontakte I mean Jesus Christ you dont get much more amateurish than that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso

All of that said let me reiterate I dismiss their narrative because its demonstrably false not because Im a partisan. I have reasons for the things I believe and I can articulate those reasons. If I can level a criticism at you before going any further youre simply throwing things out as though they were validations of your point and yet there seems to be no underlying thought or understanding of the things youre saying. And youre not addressing what Im saying either. It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Pd8TU3Dg

Its frustrating because youre not laying out an argument. But lets do take time to analyze each of your concerns. I already pointed out the fallacy of your definition of invasion. Lets go to EU corruption. To me thats a red herring and also inaccurate. According to RAND Europe the cost is closer to 990 billion euros. So your info is old. But thats still not the whole picture. Since corruption is a human universal the question to ask is does that corruption threaten the functions of the state? And in the case of the EU you have to examine which countries in particular contribute the most to corruption. According to RAND that would be Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia. Not what you would typically call a European nation. Members sure but you see my point. Whether or not you like its policies or leanings the fact of the matter is the EU works. The combined GDP of its member nations is larger than ours. And their currency is valued more than ours. Thats the faith in their system and thats a pretty damn good indication of a functioning society.

Does the corruption in Ukraine threaten the system, yes, did and does. Who argued it didnt?

Next. Fascists in the government. Youre either talking about Правий сектор or Azov Battlation and theyre affiliated. But the charge against the government falls flat when Biletsky's National Corps holds two seats out of 450 in the Rada and Right Sector holds one. So the argument falls flat.

Also I would add that your ability to effectively synthesize truth out of differing narratives requires you to understand the background which in your case is to put it frankly lacking. I dont mean that as an insult but it is true.

As to your last point:

For me the reason why you can't just storm in and take over when a decision doesn't go your way in borne out in the subsequent events, ie: civil war -- or something close to it. You're going to have to find diplomatic/democratic solutions to disputes -- that's how we do it in the West right?

Doesnt that completely contradict what youve been saying? The Maidan revolution did not go the way Russia wanted so they carved up the country. Why didnt they try for diplomation solutions?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-05-2017 at 06:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-05-2017, 06:54 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Also I would add that your ability to effectively synthesize truth out of differing narratives requires you to understand the background which in your case is to put it frankly lacking. I dont mean that as an insult but it is true.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the issue. My point is pretty simple. There are no good guys here, each are using cynical geopolitical tactics, both are guilty of 'fake news' or propaganda and both have done lots to destabilise Ukraine.

I don't really have the time go into all of the details and present a well informed argument necessarily. But I've heard serious people talk about it in this way, as a cynical western backed coup to which Russia acted with considerable restraint. It wouldn't be that difficult to put something together with a bit of time and effort, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-05-2017, 07:02 AM
fleamailman's Avatar
fleamailman (Online)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,605
Thanks: 2,578
Thanks 3,871
Default

("...sorry, the posts are too long to wade through..." started the goblin, adding "...but is someone here actually claiming that those in crimea want to be part of ukraine when and where they up until 1954 they were russians pure and simple, and that most of them still think that they are russians too, and that they voted to rebecome part of russia again, where the other bits of ukrainian sovereign territory I can fully understand the ukranian displeasure at, but I don't think that there is any ukrainan alive who won't agree that what nikita Khrushchev did back in 1954 didn't consult these russians who lived there at the time...")
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-05-2017, 07:31 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

If you dont have the time then take the time. You dont have to respond immediately. Im not going to think less of you if you have to put together an argument over a week. Who cares? What I would like is for you to address some of the points Im making instead of ignoring them. What are your thoughts on retaliation to cyber attacks? Do you concede that your point on invasions is erroneous or do you have a refutation of that argument?

I can give you I think a real world domestic scenario about truth and its necessity. This Thursday Im participating in an auction where I expect to pick up two or so houses in Baltimore. Now the houses Im aiming at already have tenets in them but the rent is low for the area, its less than a grand a month. The question is if I obtain the houses should I turn them out or raise rent or raise rent to turn them out. If truth truly is unobtainable I can concoct whatever reason I want for their removal since because truth is wholly subjective why shouldnt the truth simply be my truth and since subjectivity is fluid why shouldnt my truth accommodate the situation as much as possible? Lets be honest theres tenet protections but if you really want someone out you can get them out. I could say they violated the contract doesnt matter if they actually did or not. In your world its unknowable so why shouldnt the truth benefit me exclusively?

Edit Im watching the video now. I think the salient point Hitchens makes is that the annexation violates international norms as they stand. Quote:

'because its often portrayed as a wholly unfair and wrongful seizure of territory by russia which by pure international law is the case...'

His subsequent argument that because Crimea had a large Russian population they had a right to secede from Ukraine could be likened to the Somalian enclave in Minnesota deciding that once they have enough numbers they have the right to secede from the US.

And international norms mind you were established by the slaughter of many hundreds of millions. Something to think about.

Second edit: And flea is right and I cant believe I forgot. Stalin deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. If that isnt reason to want secession then I dont know what is. If were going to go back hundreds of years then that famine of a holocaust is certainly worthy as an exhibit.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-05-2017 at 07:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 12-05-2017, 07:58 AM
fleamailman's Avatar
fleamailman (Online)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,605
Thanks: 2,578
Thanks 3,871
Default

("...no, you don't have to do anything really, you can come back whenever you wish too, and when you do return crimea will still be russians on russian soil..." smiled the goblin, adding "...I mean what if roosevelt had given alaska back to the russians during the second world war to get them to attack hitler, would you begrudge the americans living in alaska today their wish to be americans living in america still...", in fact, ukraine took a back seat now, just america had failed miserably there too, but america would still have venezuela by way of a consolation prize instead, crude oil it was in venezuela then but the biggest old reserves in the world too, but no the real battle was the muddle-east today, "...there are too many clues inspector..." went hercule poirot's voice in the background)
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:00 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Second edit: And flea is right and I cant believe I forgot. Stalin deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. If that isnt reason to want secession then I dont know what is. If were going to go back hundreds of years then that famine of a holocaust is certainly worthy as an exhibit.
Sure... but what of all the pro Russian Ukrainians... do they just not exist? -- are all the images just fabricated etc
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:12 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

Youd be hard pressed to find any at this point. The few I spoke with mostly were older and recalling the Soviet Union. Yura actually gave me a Stalin keychain which I unfortunately lost several years ago He also sold me his passport for four bottles of vodka and I am not making that up. On the whole theyre a minority now.

But again I would ask about your opinions on retaliatory measures to cyber attacks and to my argument about invasions. If you need time just say so.

I finished watching Peter's speech, Im now watching the Q&A session but this man is a hack. His claim that Russia no longer is a superpower if it lacks Ukraine is utterly irrelevant. A nation has no god given right to the status of a superpower and certainly not at the expense of other nations. He ignores Georgia, as the second questioner rightly points out, but in answering that question he pointedly ignores the actual causes of Saakhashvili's reasons for going into South Ossetia was that they were responding to Russian backed separatists in their own territory. He also ignores the Transnistria region of Moldova also under Russian occupation. This guy is a complete hack.

Hes relying on people's ignorance of the situation. His example of Russian speakers in Crimea having to watch films in Ukrainian, besides being utterly fucking petulant (and you know they are in Ukraine), but his comparing English to Welsh and saying theres a comparable difference between Ukrainian and Russian is utterly absurd.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-05-2017 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:41 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

Started listening to other debates including this Peters. Heres another debate thats interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mitf6DkrPhY&t=235s
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 12-12-2017, 08:12 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,030
Thanks: 360
Thanks 679
Default

Michael Brenden Dougherty skewers PutinPhobes

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ritarian-power

/...obsession with Putin can act as a kind of infantile escapism for depressed liberal elites. At its most benign it is a convenient way for them to explain away real and troubling problems that the last generation of liberal governance has bequeathed to our societies, and to dismiss the hot disagreements that are the result, as a foreign plot. At its worse it is an open fantasy of power completely unconstrained by responsibility, a wish to finally detach the liberal project from the democratic mechanisms that give it legitimacy.

r
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 12-14-2017, 04:17 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

I have to think about how to answer this without rising to the bait and while I do let me ask you this. Do you think there is any basis at all for Mueller's investigation? Why or why not?


Edit: My initial thoughts are that this is a case of projection. I dont think explication is necessary to say that it is in fact Trump who harbors the despotic strain. Theres been too many examples of him chafing at the limits of his power for any to deny that. Likewise I find that the businessmen and political leaders in his sphere seek to model themselves after the oligarchs Putin keeps to maintain power. It aught be noted that most of what he is saying is baseless speculation unsubstantiated by fact. The two links he includes in the article do nothing to support his point.

The other thing of note. The author is deliberately downplaying and omitting aspects of interference. Ill continue this as I go on.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-14-2017 at 06:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 12-16-2017, 04:33 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,030
Thanks: 360
Thanks 679
Default

Is it possible that tRUMP "colluded" with Russia?

Yes, but Mueller isn't so far geting a whiff

And some of the people he has appointed have been quietly (on Mueller's part) been kicked off for being Hillary Supporters/Virulently anti tRUMP from before the election.

Were there shady dealings with the Clintons involving Russia?

Is Hillary as - or more dangerous than tRUMP? I believe she is a sociopath with few constraints and totally morally unfettered.

I've said before that Putin is probably a thug of a high degree. But I appreciate his (at least public) stances on a lot of things that do put him at odds with the old commie power brokers of the USSR, and more at odds with the new commie power brokers in the West.

A lot of things that people like to demonize Putin for are things that are in Russia's sphere of interest and sphere of influence - Crimea, Syria, etc.

This is opposed to U.S. actions in the reason that are not driven by U.S. interest but by a desire to play U.S.A. World Police and hide things that line people pockets.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 12-16-2017, 04:41 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,030
Thanks: 360
Thanks 679
Default

I can remember when Obama mocked Willard M. Romney for saying that Russia/Putin was a threat, and then when it turned out that Russia wouldn't acquiese (sp) in Crimea then and only then did Obama and company (publicly) turn on Putin

Let's return to this quote, and ignore whatever links that you think are incorrect.

...obsession with Putin can act as a kind of infantile escapism for depressed liberal elites. At its most benign it is a convenient way for them to explain away real and troubling problems that the last generation of liberal governance has bequeathed to our societies, and to dismiss the hot disagreements that are the result, as a foreign plot. At its worse it is an open fantasy of power completely unconstrained by responsibility, a wish to finally detach the liberal project from the democratic mechanisms that give it legitimacy.
The 'Murican left's current obsession with Putin is in part driven by the fact that they had no clue that tRUMP would win. And it keeps them from admitting that Hillary was a really shitty candidate that needed the primaries rigged so that she could beat an effete hack.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 12-16-2017, 04:48 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,030
Thanks: 360
Thanks 679
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Is it possible that tRUMP "colluded" with Russia?
Yes, but Mueller isn't so far geting a whiff - the fact that he has branched into things totally unrelated to this shows that his initial investigation is probably groundless, and in fact is tainted.

And the fact that people on his committee have lied to Congress, and obfuscated shows that some on his own team are guilty of things that they charging Flynn with (lying - maybe not lying under to the FBI but lying to Congress which is a crime)

When people on the Mueller team go before congress and "take the fifth" then the dirt is obvious.

Some of the people he has appointed have been quietly (on Mueller's part) been kicked off for being Hillary Supporters/Virulently anti tRUMP from before the election.

Were there shady dealings with the Clintons involving Russia?

Is Hillary as - or more dangerous than tRUMP? I believe she is a sociopath with few constraints and totally morally unfettered.

I've said before that Putin is probably a thug of a high degree. But I appreciate his (at least public) stances on a lot of things that do put him at odds with the old commie power brokers of the USSR, and more at odds with the new commie power brokers in the West.

A lot of things that people like to demonize Putin for are things that are in Russia's sphere of interest and sphere of influence - Crimea, Syria, etc.

This is opposed to U.S. actions in the reason that are not driven by U.S. interest but by a desire to play U.S.A. World Police and hide things that line people pockets.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 12-16-2017, 10:03 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,627
Thanks: 388
Thanks 985
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I can remember when Obama mocked Willard M. Romney for saying that Russia/Putin was a threat, and then when it turned out that Russia wouldn't acquiese (sp) in Crimea then and only then did Obama and company (publicly) turn on Putin

Let's return to this quote, and ignore whatever links that you think are incorrect.



The 'Murican left's current obsession with Putin is in part driven by the fact that they had no clue that tRUMP would win. And it keeps them from admitting that Hillary was a really shitty candidate that needed the primaries rigged so that she could beat an effete hack.


I donít know any liberal who doesnít or didnít think Hillary was a bad candidate, other than the Hollywood shills and paid democratic operatives on TV. None. No ďrealĒ people. And I know a lot of liberals.

Some of them think she was a better choice than Trump, but they know she was the wrong candidate. Two wrongs donít make a right, eh?

So here we are... we chose one evil over another. So what? It seems the new norm in the west. As is the demonization of the media.

You nor any of us know what Mueller knows at this point. Thatís how investigations work. So the idea that there is not a ďwhiffĒ of collusion is either a guess, or a desire on your part.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 12-16-2017, 10:08 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,627
Thanks: 388
Thanks 985
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Yes, but Mueller isn't so far geting a whiff - the fact that he has branched into things totally unrelated to this shows that his initial investigation is probably groundless, and in fact is tainted.

Really?

Címon dude. Use your education at least. At least make it a good argument. Itís no fun if you just post ungrounded opinions that fly in the face of actual procedure. If in the course of one investigation, a special prosecutor discovers a separate crime(s), it has to be dealt with.

Whereís David when we need a lawyers opinion? Maybe he can explain how the law works so you can understand.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 12-17-2017, 07:45 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

@mohican Im gonna hold off on replying because I want to see what happens when this story breaks on Monday. The fact that its already brewing over the weekend tells ya something

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/16/politi...ter/index.html

Oh and here's the letter from the administration's lawyer:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...b-756de2a90000

And as a refutation of that entire letter here is the GSA's policy on privacy:

https://www.gsa.gov/reference/for-gsa-employees

Specifically:

The following legal notice applies to all internal systems accessed from this page:

YOU HAVE CONNECTED TO A U.S. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER. IF YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO THIS SYSTEM, DISCONNECT NOW.

***** WARNING ****

This is a U.S. General Services Administration Federal Government computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. [GSA CIO P 2100.1F, page 39 of 43, Chapter 5, Paragraph 4] or may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment in accordance with Title 18, USC, Section 1030 USAGE NOTICE: If you are on a computer that is government issued or that you personally own, please select the 'This is a private computer' option. Otherwise, select the 'This is a public computer' option for public computers, or computers that you do not personally own. You will then need to enter your User ID (Active Directory logon) and click 'Submit' to access the system. If you experience any issues or difficulties, please contact the IT Service Desk at +1(866)450-5250 or email them at itservicedesk@gsa.gov
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 12-17-2017, 03:02 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,627
Thanks: 388
Thanks 985
Default Information/Cyber/russia

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
@mohican Im gonna hold off on replying because I want to see what happens when this story breaks on Monday. The fact that its already brewing over the weekend tells ya something 😀

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/16/politi...ter/index.html

Oh and here's the letter from the administration's lawyer:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...b-756de2a90000

And as a refutation of that entire letter here is the GSA's policy on privacy:

https://www.gsa.gov/reference/for-gsa-employees

Specifically:

The following legal notice applies to all internal systems accessed from this page:

YOU HAVE CONNECTED TO A U.S. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER. IF YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO THIS SYSTEM, DISCONNECT NOW.

***** WARNING ****

This is a U.S. General Services Administration Federal Government computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. [GSA CIO P 2100.1F, page 39 of 43, Chapter 5, Paragraph 4] or may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment in accordance with Title 18, USC, Section 1030 USAGE NOTICE: If you are on a computer that is government issued or that you personally own, please select the 'This is a private computer' option. Otherwise, select the 'This is a public computer' option for public computers, or computers that you do not personally own. You will then need to enter your User ID (Active Directory logon) and click 'Submit' to access the system. If you experience any issues or difficulties, please contact the IT Service Desk at +1(866)450-5250 or email them at itservicedesk@gsa.gov


My gut tells me this wonít amount to much. Iím not talking about the emails themselves, but the administrations pushback probably wonít affect anything either way. When I saw it this morning I thought: Trump was a track record (now accepted) that he and his administration lie whenever itís convenient or ďnecessary.Ē Itís just what IS at this point. You canít ďgotchaĒ anybody who is known to just say whatever to divert attention from their doings. Itís like a get out of jail free card.

Now, the emails might contain some shit, but we wonít know about those for weeks or more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:35 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

Yeah I dont really give a shit what the administration says but the takeaway from this is that during Mueller's interviews over the last several months those whom he was interviewing had no idea he was in possession of them.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 12-17-2017, 05:57 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,627
Thanks: 388
Thanks 985
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
those whom he was interviewing had no idea he was in possession of them.

Thatís the way a good prosecutor does it. They know all the answers before they ask the questions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 12-20-2017, 03:12 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

Interesting development. The administration has approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine. The system in question is the M107A1, an anti material rifle.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f2a93ff42e9b

https://barrett.net/firearms/m107a1/

This weapon can be chambered with the Raufoss Mk 211(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211). An API designed for light armor penetration that would typically be employed against BMPs and BTRs.

According to the article no sale has actually been made and while the M107A1 would do some to blunt a mechanized assault it isnt a game changer and in light of the recent flareup of violence in the region I wonder if this is not an attempt to give Russia an excuse to intervene. In much the manner as Russia invaded Georgia after the latter's incursion into South Ossetia it may be that theyre waiting for UA to arm, not significantly, but in such a manner as they would feel confident to retake occupied territory.

Id say thats far fetched if only there wasnt precedence for it. That said my guess is that this is more about placating foreign policy wonks in the Pentagon and giving guise of opposing Russia to the public.


That line Ill say myself seems
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bluewpc For This Useful Post:
fleamailman (12-22-2017)
  #177  
Old 12-23-2017, 07:30 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

AP reports that even more systems are being made available in an expanded weapon package that includes the Javelin missile system.

This is a big development. The Javelin operates in two modes, Direct angle and top down. The second mode is pretty damn cool. Instead of hitting a tank on the side it drops down vertically from above, in some cases right through the turret hatch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llzKYdjeSzQ
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 12-23-2017, 11:13 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,627
Thanks: 388
Thanks 985
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
AP reports that even more systems are being made available in an expanded weapon package that includes the Javelin missile system.

This is a big development. The Javelin operates in two modes, Direct angle and top down. The second mode is pretty damn cool. Instead of hitting a tank on the side it drops down vertically from above, in some cases right through the turret hatch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llzKYdjeSzQ


So, we are arming Ukraine against the Russian troops?

My cynical self would just assume weíve always been doing that. And not just in Russia but everywhere.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 12-23-2017, 01:35 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 425
Thanks: 3
Thanks 45
Default

The yet more cynical me would say we always let others do it for us

But yes basically we appear to be moving towards arming Ukraine with lethal weaponry which is a big continuation of policy that honestly I was not expecting. On the other hand theres been no actual transfers thus far so I might still hold my breath on it.

And the incredible thing about this is we are supplying them with weapons meant to defeat modern armor. So with Syria and Iraq we supplied them with TOW launchers but those were made back in the 70's and while theyre still effective against most armors theres a good chance that modern armor and especially tanks (because this is what the javelin is meant to counter) equipped with APS systems (such as ERA or Arena).
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 12-23-2017, 04:28 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,030
Thanks: 360
Thanks 679
Default


Originally Posted by Mohican
Yes, but Mueller isn't so far geting a whiff - the fact that he has branched into things totally unrelated to this shows that his initial investigation is probably groundless, and in fact is tainted.


Brianpatrick wrote: Really?

Címon dude. Use your education at least. At least make it a good argument. Itís no fun if you just post ungrounded opinions that fly in the face of actual procedure. If in the course of one investigation, a special prosecutor discovers a separate crime(s), it has to be dealt with.

Whereís David when we need a lawyers opinion? Maybe he can explain how the law works so you can understand.
Have some of the people on Mueller's team been quietly shuffled off to the side?
Yes?

Have some of these people shown in emails before the election and after to being highly partisan for Hillary and anti tRUMP?

Yes?

Can we compare this to the 1990s and the Ken Starr special prosecution where he only went as far as his original mission?
No?

So is there mission creep?
Yes?

So once again you have nothing to refute a point
You'll have to do better in the future.


__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:27 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.