RussiaGate

[barbos]

Fuck you and your dishonest bullshit.

Oooh. Struck a nerve, I see.
You are asking everyone here to believe that Pootey doesn't direct people to do what they can to get him what he wants.
You must be some REALLY special kind of stupid, barbie. Fuck you and your toddler-level propaganda attempts.

Apparently it did matter to left-wing talking heads.

... and the right-wing talking heads, and the centrist talking heads, and everyone else except BARBIE!

Putin says he wanted Trump to win

Politico
The Hill
Business Insider
The Atlantic
Snopes (fact checker)
WaPo
CNN
NBC
Boston.com
ABC
Fox5dc
Bloomberg.com
Newsweek
Huffpo
GQ
NPR
...and many more.

You need to go back to IRA and take some more propagandizing lessons - you aren't even up to level=FAIL.

You keep digging the hole dipper.

 

[barbos]

It really isn't worth pursuing barbos on this, because all Putin clearly admitted to in Helsinki was that he wanted Trump to win because of his pro-Russia stance. AFAICT, he did not admit that he directed his people to help elect Trump. The problem is that a reporter asked him in English:

"...did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your people to officials to help him do that?"

Here is a thing, this round started because Gun Nut mentioned it as a fact to which I pointed out it was not.
So clearly there are people which still believe that Putin admitted interference,
Same with Alfa Bank, despite Mueller report not mentioning that story at all, left-wing monkeys still act as if there is some smoke there.
In reality as I said it's clear that there are some bad actors in democratic camp who manufactured that story. You people go on and on about pizza-gate but when it comes to democrats doing the same thing you do nothing or even accepting it as fact.
Trump people are idiots for letting it go.

It would have been stupid for him to answer affirmatively to the second part of that question, so it is hard to believe that he was addressing it

Exactly, yet Rachel Maddow arguably the smartest talking head in the universe believed it.

 

[Copernicus]

Here is a thing, this round started because Gun Nut mentioned it as a fact to which I pointed out it was not.
So clearly there are people which still believe that Putin admitted interference,
Same with Alfa Bank, despite Mueller report not mentioning that story at all, left-wing monkeys still act as if there is some smoke there.
In reality as I said it's clear that there are some bad actors in democratic camp who manufactured that story. You people go on and on about pizza-gate but when it comes to democrats doing the same thing you do nothing or even accepting it as fact.
Trump people are idiots for letting it go.

To be clear, Vladimir Putin very clearly did say that he wanted Donald Trump to win the presidency. That issue has been confused with the claim that he admitted to directing his government to interfere in the election, which he has steadfastly denied. However, we all know that he lies about his intentions and actions, when it suits him. He is exactly as credible as Donald Trump, although Trump is a habitual, serial liar. Putin is a strategic liar. There is really no serious doubt that Putin's government has meddled in US elections and even hacked into election systems in the US. He was not the only factor that contributed to Trump's winning the election, but it is unlikely that Trump would have pulled off his electoral victory without Putin's help. It is unlikely he would have won without FBI Director Comey's help either. There is also strong evidence that Russia is continuing these activities and that significant numbers of Republicans welcome their help, as long as it isn't used to help elect Democrats.

It would have been stupid for him to answer affirmatively to the second part of that question, so it is hard to believe that he was addressing it

Exactly, yet Rachel Maddow arguably the smartest talking head in the universe believed it.

She is arguably one of the smartest talking heads on TV. I wouldn't argue with that. And she is clearly as biased as most other TV journalists these days. She does go over the top and get things wrong from time to time. That does not mean that everything she says should be automatically disregarded. It is always a good idea to fact check what any TV talking head says these days.

Just because you can find some mistakes that Western journalists make in their reporting, that does not mean that they lack credibility in most of their reporting. The more reputable sources will retract and correct reporting that they discover to contain errors. I suspect that that kind of thing happens much less often in the Russian media, which is quite often full of blatant pro-government misrepresentations and lies that never get corrected, even when the reporters are fully aware that they are lying.

 

[barbos]

To be clear, Vladimir Putin very clearly did say that he wanted Donald Trump to win the presidency.

Again, that's not the issue here. Even if Putin had not cared who would win he would have to say he wanted Trump to win because Trump is a fucking narcissist standing right there.

That issue has been confused with the claim that he admitted to directing his government to interfere in the election, which he has steadfastly denied. However, we all know that he lies about his intentions and actions, when it suits him.

That's not an issue here either. The issue here is left-wing journalist who turned out to be as dumb as right-wing journalist.

He is exactly as credible as Donald Trump, although Trump is a habitual, serial liar. Putin is a strategic liar. There is really no serious doubt that Putin's government has meddled in US elections and even hacked into election systems in the US. He was not the only factor that contributed to Trump's winning the election, but it is unlikely that Trump would have pulled off his electoral victory without Putin's help. It is unlikely he would have won without FBI Director Comey's help either. There is also strong evidence that Russia is continuing these activities and that significant numbers of Republicans welcome their help, as long as it isn't used to help elect Democrats.

Exactly, yet Rachel Maddow arguably the smartest talking head in the universe believed it.

She is arguably one of the smartest talking heads on TV. I wouldn't argue with that. And she is clearly as biased as most other TV journalists these days. She does go over the top and get things wrong from time to time. That does not mean that everything she says should be automatically disregarded. It is always a good idea to fact check what any TV talking head says these days.

Just because you can find some mistakes that Western journalists make in their reporting, that does not mean that they lack credibility in most of their reporting. The more reputable sources will retract and correct reporting that they discover to contain errors. I suspect that that kind of thing happens much less often in the Russian media, which is quite often full of blatant pro-government misrepresentations and lies that never get corrected, even when the reporters are fully aware that they are lying.

It was not a mistake, it was a stupid mistake
These fuckers are paid millions of dollars to talk on TV and they can't smell BS.
And I am not aware of Maddow&Co correcting it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Apparently it did matter to left-wing talking heads.

Because their job is to report the news. Having Putin confirm--or even appear to confirm--that he specifically wanted Trump to win is obviously news, particularly at a point when Trump kept denying that there was any interference at all by Russia.

These stupid shitheads reported something that did not actually happen.

No they didn’t. There are three elements to that story; to that question. The first was that Putin confirmed he wanted Trump to win. The second was whether or not Putin admitted to interfering in the election. The third is the fact that both the White House and the Kremlin edited their official versions of the section where the question was asked.

Google “putin says he wanted trump to win” and you’ll see that the mainstream players pretty much all reported that Putin said he wanted Trump to win, but that he denied interfering. Same with Rachel Maddow.

In addition to that fact, however—and what Maddow actually did refuse to retract and you have conveniently omitted—was the fact that the official White House transcript and video of the press conference had been edited: Maddow Refuses Correction: Trump WH "Disappeared" Putin Support in Transcript; WaPo: Was Technical Error

Here is the full transcript of her show. I’m going to quote a relevant section at length that I’m sure you won’t read that lays out exactly what her issues were having little to nothing to do with the interference part of the question and everything to do with the fact that both the White House and the Kremlin had edited their respective official versions of the press conference:

This is the transcript of what you just saw happen at that press
conference. Like if you look at a real transcript of what happened, this
is it. President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election?
Did you direct flew [sic] of your officials to do that?

Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S./Russia
relationship back to normal.

That`s the real transcript of what actually happened. Now, as of right
now, tonight, here is the official White House transcript of that same
moment.

You see that? In the White House transcript, look at what is missing. In
the White House transcript, we`ve still got President Putin`s answer: yes,
I did. Yes, I did. But the White House just dropped the question that he
was actually answering there.

The White House transcript has no reference to Jeff Mason from “Reuters”
asking President Putin, did you want president Trump to win the election?
That`s not in the White House transcript.

Now, reporter Uri Friedman at “The Atlantic” magazine was first to report
on this anomaly in the White House transcript right after it happened.
And, you know, sometimes transcripts are wrong, they`re very rarely wrong
on such a high profile simple thing, right? But, I mean, you know, that
moment probably got more immediate attention than anything else that
happened in that remarkable Q&A with reporters.

But in the grand scheme of things, it`s not unheard of for a White House
transcript to be inaccurate. And when that happens, there`s sort of an
informal process where reporters point out something that`s wrong or
something that`s missing or something that`s mischaracterized in the
transcript and then the White House later makes a fix to the official
transcript. It happens not all the time but it happens fairly frequently.
It`s not that big a deal.

So after this incorrect transcript came out, from the Trump and Putin
summit with the question, did you want President Trump to win the election?
With that gone from the transcript, “The Atlantic” published this
criticism, noting that the transcript was wrong and after “The Atlantic”
first published this account, a lot of other news outlets picked it up,
pointed out that the White House transcript was wrong.

The White House is apparently not correcting it. It is still incorrect
tonight. The incorrect transcript dropping out the question when Putin is
asked if he wanted Trump to win the election, he said yes, yes, I did. The
incorrect transcript still stands tonight.

And we can report tonight that the White House video of this exchange has
also skillfully cut out that question from are the “Reuters” reporter as if
it didn`t happen.

So I`ll show you back to back here. I`ll show you the real one first and
what the White House posted online instead. Here first is the real one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PUTIN: Options abound. And they all can be found in an appropriate, legal
framework –

REPORTER: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the
election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the
U.S./Russia relationship back to normal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: That`s the real one.

Now, watch what the White House has posted online instead?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PUTIN: Options abound. And they all can be found in an appropriate, legal
framework –

REPORTER: And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: They just dropped it out.

First part of his question, President Putin, did you want President Trump
to win the election? They just dropped that out.

What the White House has disappeared from the official U.S. government
record of that meeting both in print and in their video of the meeting is
President Putin answering in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Trump
to win the election.

Just for kicks, if you want to check out the Russian government version, of
this, their transcript, their supposed transcript of this event, in the
Russian transcript, Jeff Mason from “Reuters” is not only doesn`t ask his
full question, Jeff Mason of “Reuters” doesn`t even exist in the Russian
transcript. See where that red arrow is? They`ve completely taken out
that whole part of the Q&A where the “Reuters” is reporter asked the
question.

At least the White House had the courtesy to leave in half of his question.
So, you can get a misleading answer. The Russians just disappeared him all
together. The Kremlin transcript just skip over that entire exchange.

So, a critical exchange deleted from the transcript, a reporter`s question
edited out of videotape. The U.S. government essentially following the
Kremlin`s playbook in maintaining that something we all saw happen with our
own eyes, we all heard happen with our ears has nevertheless disappeared,
right? Like old political opponents being air brushed out of photos,
right? It`s weird, right? It`s creepy.

Turns out it wasn`t a mistake. Turns out it was on purpose. Well, now,
today, we got the inevitable payoff. We got the inevitable next step from
our president on this point.

Now, if you`ve watched the show before, you might know I don`t generally
make a habit of reporting on the president`s public pronouncements
particularly those he makes on Twitter. But with that said, I do think
that you should see this from his Twitter feed today.

He said, quote: I`m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard
to have an impact on the upcoming election. They`ll be pushing very hard
for the Democrats. They definitely don`t want Trump.

A week ago, live on television, in front of hundreds of in a roomful of
hundreds of reporters, President Putin actually said, I want Trump. You
know that to be true. You will know that to be true as long as you can
remember it.

But if the official record never says that happened, if it`s not there on
the tape, if it`s not there in the transcripts, how fast before that
disappears from what is supposed to be recorded history? Is a week fast
enough?

 

[barbos]

Any reasonable person would have said "There is no way, he could have said that, we need to recheck, do we have someone who speak russian?" But not the smartest talking head in the universe.

Same with Alfa Bank "Lets check this story with independent IT experts...."
When nobody can confirm, any BS would fly.
It's clear that Koy does not care about facts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Any reasonable person would have said "There is no way, he could have said that, we need to recheck, do we have someone who speak russian?" But not the smartest talking head in the universe.

Once again, she never affirmed the interference part of the question. Her focus was on the fact that Putin affirmed he wanted Trump to win and that both the WH and the Kremlin doctored that section of the press conference.

In regard to Alfa Bank, that is evidently still an open question. Time just published this piece four days ago: Questions Remain About Putin's Request for a Back Channel to the Trump Transition.

Snippets:

A few weeks before Donald Trump became president, Russian banker Petr Aven, a billionaire oligarch with Moscow’s Alfa Bank, pulled aside Washington lobbyist Richard Burt at a corporate meeting in Luxembourg with a sensitive request.

Aven told Burt that “someone high in the Russian government” wanted “a communications channel between the Kremlin and the Trump Transition Team,” according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recently released report. Aven wanted Burt, a former ambassador who had helped Trump’s campaign, to work on setting it up.

Burt later told Mueller’s team that the request was, in the words of the report, “outside the normal realm,” even for Burt, a well-traveled Washington insider who had worked with Aven for years. It looks even more remarkable now.

The “high” Russian official was none other than President Vladimir Putin, Mueller’s team would later learn. Amid what Mueller called a “flurry of Russian activity” during the Trump transition, the Aven outreach is the only publicly known instance in which Putin, a onetime KGB spy, was personally involved in directing Russia’s clandestine efforts with the incoming administration.

The surreptitious contacts involving Putin, Aven and Burt as described in the Mueller report contradict repeated assertions by Alfa Bank that it had no contacts with Trump or people around him. At the time of Trump’s election, Alfa Bank was at the center of a mystery over an unexplained surge in computer traffic from Moscow to the Trump Organization in the midst of the 2016 presidential campaign. Computer analysts concluded that Alfa Bank had developed a covert communications channel to the Trump Organization.

The bank has adamantly denied those assertions, saying in March 2017, for instance, that opponents were trying to use the Internet traffic to create “the false impression that Alfa Bank has business or other dealings with Mr. Trump.” Alfa Bank said separately that same month that the bank and Mr. Aven had not had “any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations.”

Mueller did not address the cyber-traffic one way or the other in his report. That has left some Democrats on Capitol Hill unsatisfied. “Even in the wake of the Mueller report, we don’t know the meaning of the 2016 communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization servers, nor do we even know whether the FBI has fully investigated those links,” says Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

In regard to that activity, the piece notes:

Alfa Bank was neck deep in a controversy between Russia and the Trump campaign at the time. Beginning in the spring of 2016, according to cyber analysts, Alfa Bank’s computer servers in Russia had “pinged” a rarely-used email server connected to the Trump Organization more than 2,700 times with computer-domain “look-ups” — essentially a knock on the door from one computer server seeking to talk to another one. The “look-ups,” and were identified by independent computer analysts tracking Internet traffic.

One of them, Jean Camp, a computer science professor at Indiana University, examined Alfa Bank’s email “look-ups,” and posted an analysis of the Internet traffic soon after it surfaced, urging more investigation. A number of experts in the field, including Camp, said the computer traffic had the characteristics of a covert email chain that could facilitate the transfer of data or other hidden communications. The Trump server involved in the traffic was taken down in September of 2016, soon after the bank’s Washington representatives learned of questions about the suspicious activity.

Alfa Bank’s lawyers sent Camp a series of letters denying any communication with the Trump Organization and threatening legal action. In one March 2017 letter, Alfa told her the company had “never had any relationship of any kind with the Trump Organization.”

Alfa Bank sticks by that claim when it comes to the question of communication between Alfa’s computer servers and the Trump camp. Any suggestion to the contrary “is false, it’s still false, and it will always be false,” Jeffrey Birnbaum, a spokesman for the bank with the BGR Group in Washington, told TIME when asked again recently about the suspicious cyber activity. “There was never any sort of electronic communication — ever,” Birnbaum says.

After the election, Daniel Jones, a former senior national security investigator with both the FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee who now leads a private investigative firm, used a team of computer analysts to examine the Alfa Bank server traffic, and says that the computer traffic in 2016 was “highly unusual.” Jones’ team found that 80% of the traffic going to one particular server at the Trump Organization was coming from Alfa Bank. “The question is why?” says Jones.
...
Jones says the Mueller report deepens the mystery. “Who knows what they were doing with the Alfa server but this new evidence certainly raises all sorts of additional questions,” Jones said in an interview. Camp says she finds it striking that Putin personally directed Aven to create a Trump backchannel, even after Alfa Bank repeatedly denied that any relationship existed before that. “I feel vindicated knowing that there really were communications going on,” she said.

Mueller’s redacted report doesn’t mention the cyber-traffic, or say whether there were any communications during the campaign between Alfa Bank and the Trump camp. “We still don’t know the full story,” said Ilya Zaslavskiy at the Free Russia Foundation in Washington.

ETA: Here is Professor Camp’s webpage and data regarding the Trump/Alfa Bank matter.

 

[Elixir]

Barbie is acting as dumb as his wooden-headed avatar. Does he REALLY expect anyone to believe that Pootey doesn't direct his henchmen to deliver what he tells them he wants?
Junior propagandist needs more training.

 

[lpetrich]

Russian documents reveal desire to sow racial discord — and violence — in the U.S.

LONDON — Russians who were linked to interference in the 2016 U.S. election discussed ambitious plans to stoke unrest and even violence inside the U.S. as recently as 2018, according to documents reviewed by NBC News.

...
One document said that President Donald Trump’s election had “deepened conflicts in American society” and suggested that, if successful, the influence project would “undermine the country’s territorial integrity and military and economic potential.”

Territorial integrity? Does that mean that they are willing to support separatists?

The documents contained proposals for several ways to further exacerbate racial discord in the future, including a suggestion to recruit African Americans and transport them to camps in Africa “for combat prep and training in sabotage.” Those recruits would then be sent back to America to foment violence and work to establish a pan-African state in the South, particularly in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Indeed they are, it seems. I think that those strategists were extrapolating from their knowledge of numerous separatist movements closer to home. Like ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians departing from the Soviet Union in its last year of its existence. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia splitting up not long after. Flemish and Walloons not getting along very well in Belgium. Scotland and Catalonia voting on independence from Britain and Spain. Northern Ireland.

But there are also white separatists in the South, like the League of The South. They want to revive that big separatist movement of a century and a half ago, the Southern Confederacy.

So might these Russian strategists propose supporting both sides? They have already done so with Muslims and their opponents.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So might these Russian strategists propose supporting both sides? They have already done so with Muslims and their opponents.

They did already in the 2016 election as well.

I think the key to this whole thing is here:

There is no indication that the plan — which is light on details — was ever put into action, but it offers a fresh example of the mindset around Russian efforts to sow discord in the U.S.

The blueprint, entitled “Development Strategy of a Pan-African State on U.S. Territory,” floated the idea of enlisting poor, formerly incarcerated African Americans “who have experience in organized crime groups” as well as members of “radical black movements for participation in civil disobedience actions.”

The goal was to “destabilize the internal situation in the U.S.”

Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI and an NBC News contributor, who reviewed the documents, said that they offer a warning to the U.S.

“Regardless of whether or not these plans are an amateurish thought experiment, the fact that these people are talking about doing this should disturb Americans of all stripes,” Figliuzzi said.

“The unfortunate reality is that we’re seeing an adversary that will consider virtually anything to get what it wants, and if it means violence or splitting America along racial lines or eroding our trust in institutions, they’ll do it.”

Some of the documents appear to have been sent by Dzheykhun “Jay” Aslanov, an employee of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based troll farm that played a key role in the 2016 Russian meddling campaign. Aslanov was one of 13 Russians indicted by Mueller in February 2018 for his role with the IRA.

Iow, this is classic misdirection. The new false narrative on the right--now that it's been incontrovertibly confirmed that Russia did in fact attack us and that it was not a "deep state" hoax or 400 lb kids in a basement or the Chinese or any of the other constant stream of diversionary horseshit out of the WH to obfuscate the fact that they knew the whole time it was the Russians--is that it's all been about general discord and sowing general chaos.

By revising the story so that it's just general mayhem (or even this new Manson-modified version, where they're trying to foment Helter Skelter) it takes the focus off of Trump and treason and puts it instead into the more nebulous arena of nation-states doing what all nation-states do.

Iow, it's the exact same tactic/revisionist narrative that we've just all of a sudden been debating of late "magically" coinciding with the confirmation by Mueller that no, it was not a hoax and yes the Russians specifically wanted Trump to win and took extraordinary steps to make that happen right from the start of the primaries (if not before the primaries as the evidence also strongly suggests).

 

[lpetrich]

'Russian trolls' promoted California independence - BBC News

The California independence movement has been spearheaded by a group called Yes California. One of the group's co-founders, Louis Marinelli, opened a self-styled California embassy in Moscow, and later moved to Siberi

Marinelli attended a conference of Western secession movements in 2016, along with representatives from similar groups from Texas, Puerto Rico and Northern Ireland. The conference was organised by the Anti-Globalisation Movement, a group that has received money from the Russian government, according to Casey Michel, a reporter for the left-wing news site ThinkProgress.

"It had received funding from the Kremlin to organise this conference to pay for the travel and lodging of American and European secession movements," Michel says.

Map of the Day: Ex-KGB Analyst Predicts Balkanization of U.S. - The Atlantic According to a certain Igor Panarin:

He seems to suggest that each would be its own republic, but if not, that the North would fall under Canadian influence, the South would fold into Mexico's sphere of influence, the West would go to China, the East to the E.U., Hawaii to Japan or China, and of course Alaska would be returned to Russia.

Crazy, right? Well, the Wall Street Journal reports: "Panarin is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations."

In 1998, he predicted that the US would break up in 2010. It didn't happen. But the idea of breaking up the US seems alive and well in the Kremlin.

 

[Copernicus]

To me, the most interesting thing about the White House version of the Helsinki sound byte was that they botched the editing. They edited out the part of the question where the reporter asked if Putin wanted Trump to win, but they left in the part where he was asked if he directed his officials to meddle. So they actually made it look like Putin was admitting that he meddled in the US election, when he wasn't admitting that at all. Nobody was going to blame him for wanting Trump to win. What bothered everyone was that he engaged in espionage activities to influence the election.

Usually, world leaders are careful about not taking public stances on elections in other countries until they are over, but Putin was speaking after the fact here. I found Maddow's reporting a little confusing, because she did not really address the fact that the wrong part of the reporter's question was edited out. In any case, the press largely reported the incident as if Putin were admitting to interference in the US election. The Russians solved the problem by editing out the whole thing, because Putin embarrassed himself by jumping in with a positive answer before he had had time to digest the second part of the two-part question. Had he been more patient, he would have handled the question better. Then again, he isn't really used to getting a lot of adversarial questions from reporters. He usually controls and scripts the questions that he gets asked in news conferences.

 

[barbos]

'Russian trolls' promoted California independence - BBC News
The California independence movement has been spearheaded by a group called Yes California. One of the group's co-founders, Louis Marinelli, opened a self-styled California embassy in Moscow, and later moved to Siberi

Chechen separatists had all kind of embassies/representation all over Europe and US.
Oh wait, we can't talk about that, some fallacy, sorry.

In 1998, he predicted that the US would break up in 2010. It didn't happen. But the idea of breaking up the US seems alive and well in the Kremlin.

Why should not it be? US broke up Soviet Union and still want to break Russia further.

 

[Copernicus]

In 1998, he predicted that the US would break up in 2010. It didn't happen. But the idea of breaking up the US seems alive and well in the Kremlin.

Why should not it be? US broke up Soviet Union and still want to break Russia further.

You are obsessed with the idea that the US is responsible for the consequences of the bad behavior of the people who ruled the Soviet empire, often by intimidation and force of arms. The fact is that the Soviet Union fell apart because of changes that happened inside of the Soviet Union itself, not external enemies. The same kinds of ethnic rivalries that plagued the Yugoslav empire also existed in the Soviet empire. That is why the satellite countries were the first to rebel and quickly join with Western Europe and NATO. Ukraine is largely Russian speaking but not anxious to return to dominance by another self-appointed tsar. Not even Belarus is happy with its aggressive neighbor. All of that was caused by historic tensions and tribal animosities that never had anything to do with the United States.

The US government itself has absolutely no interest in seeing Russia disintegrate into more rival states, some of which could become sponsors of terrorism. In fact, a lot of people were unhappy that the Soviet Union fell apart the way it did, since a lot of weapons of mass destruction ended up in newly formed states that might see some value in controlling and/or selling off those assets. Russian stability is far more in the interests of US security.

 

[Ford]

In 1998, he predicted that the US would break up in 2010. It didn't happen. But the idea of breaking up the US seems alive and well in the Kremlin.

Why should not it be? US broke up Soviet Union and still want to break Russia further.

You are obsessed with the idea that the US is responsible for the consequences of the bad behavior of the people who ruled the Soviet empire, often by intimidation and force of arms. The fact is that the Soviet Union fell apart because of changes that happened inside of the Soviet Union itself, not external enemies.

My understanding is that the Soviet Union collapsed in no small part due to the policies of Gorbachev, whose "openness" and "restructuring" exposed the fact that it was already failing long before he took over. It wasn't too hard to see. In fact I recall one of my history professors (and I graduated college in 1987) saying "you wanna make money? Go to business school and learn to speak Russian."

 

[barbos]

In 1998, he predicted that the US would break up in 2010. It didn't happen. But the idea of breaking up the US seems alive and well in the Kremlin.

Why should not it be? US broke up Soviet Union and still want to break Russia further.

You are obsessed with the idea that the US is responsible for the consequences of the bad stupid behavior of the people who ruled the Soviet empire, often by intimidation and force of arms. The fact is that the Soviet Union fell apart because of changes that happened inside of the Soviet Union itself, not external enemies.

I fixed some of it. But in general you are wrong here. Soviet Union fell apart because of economic mismanagement, not because it was oppressing people. China proves that you can oppress people and yet be economically successful.

The same kinds of ethnic rivalries that plagued the Yugoslav empire also existed in the Soviet empire.

No, not the same, not even close. Soviet Union pretty much had none.

That is why the satellite countries were the first to rebel and quickly join with Western Europe and NATO.

Wrong again. Nobody rebelled, Soviet union simply was no longer able to afford them.

Ukraine is largely Russian speaking but not anxious to return to dominance by another self-appointed tsar.

You keep repeating propaganda.

Not even Belarus is happy with its aggressive neighbor.

Oh, boy, am I glad you stepped into this one
You need to educate yourself on this particular subject. 10% of their GDP is direct and indirect subsidies from Russia.
That have been fine with Putin and nobody complained about aggressive Russia. But when their Tsar started to make Putin look stupid by importing (to Russia) seafood and growing bananas in enormous quantities then Putin decided that russian help should be scaled back over time.
Belarusian Tsar is well known for playing both sides. As far as I am concerned Russia should have got rid of Belarus long time ago (same with Ukraine) I am sick and tired of Putin paying "prostitutes" Good fucking riddance. Of course that's unlikely to happen because of NATO but I can hope.

All of that was caused by historic tensions and tribal animosities that never had anything to do with the United States.

Again, you are projecting, none of it really existed in any measurable amount. Yes, there was some caucasus but it had nothing to do with Russia, these people just like to hate each other. Again, if it was up to me I would have left them all to their own devices and watched them getting extinct.

The US government itself has absolutely no interest in seeing Russia disintegrate into more rival states,

Which government are you talking about? current one? US neocons have absolute interest in Russia being further reduced.

some of which could become sponsors of terrorism.

Neocons are fine with some terrorism.

In fact, a lot of people were unhappy that the Soviet Union fell apart the way it did, since a lot of weapons of mass destruction ended up in newly formed states that might see some value in controlling and/or selling off those assets.

No, they were not unhappy, they were worried but then they forced Ukraine and Kazakhstan to give it up. Kazakhstan was not really interested in keeping it anyway.

Russian stability is far more in the interests of US security.

That's a thing, neocons think they can safely reduce Russia to nothing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The fact is that the Soviet Union fell apart because of changes that happened inside of the Soviet Union itself, not external enemies.

I fixed some of it. But in general you are wrong here. Soviet Union fell apart because of economic mismanagement, not because it was oppressing people.

That’s what Cop just said.

All of that was caused by historic tensions and tribal animosities that never had anything to do with the United States.

Again, you are projecting, none of it really existed in any measurable amount. Yes, there was some caucasus but it had nothing to do with Russia, these people just like to hate each other.

So, iow, because of historic tensions and tribal animosities.

You don’t read very goodly.

 

[Elixir]

That’s what Cop just said.

Reading comprehension deficits are hard to address online.

You don’t read very goodly.

That's somewhat excusable. What is not so excusable is denial of facts, such as the fact that Pootey tells his minions to get him what he wants.

 

[barbos]

People who can't find Chechnya on a map (forget ever seeing chechen/dagestanian) giving lecture about ethnic problems in Russia.

 

[Copernicus]

That is why the satellite countries were the first to rebel and quickly join with Western Europe and NATO.

Wrong again. Nobody rebelled, Soviet union simply was no longer able to afford them.

Barbos, I give you credit for being better than a совок*, but you are incredibly ignorant, if you know nothing about the rebellions and ethnic oppression that took place during the Soviet period. Every country tends to whitewash its past, but you have access to more of the history of your country than is in Russian history books. Is this the excuse you have been given for why all of the satellite countries, including the Baltic Republics, moved swiftly to join NATO and Western Europe? For why Ukraine would still like to join NATO? You never heard of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the Czech Velvet Revolution, when demonstrators tore down street signs to confuse invading Soviet tanks and painted swastikas on them? Seriously? You don't understand why the Orange Revolution happened in Ukraine and Yanukovych fled into Russia?

It's too bad that you have no respect for the social sciences. That may explain the gaps in your knowledge of the history of your own country. You need to educate yourself.

*Russian slang for person who idealizes Soviet ideology, morals, and habits.