Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2017 at 9:07 am by Anomalocaris.)
(July 12, 2017 at 8:52 am)Alex K Wrote: I also found the trend worrying among liberals to label Russia an enemy in order to render the Trump campaign's deeds more dramatic.
For actively interfering in American national politics to affect putting trump in the office, Russia proves itself a more dangerous enemy than the Soviet Union was.
The Soviet Union always steered clear of direct interference in American national elections even though soviet union's capacity to do so was undoubtedly greater and deeper than Putin's Russia. This both shows that the eastern NATO expansion policies the US pursued from Clinton to Obama had been perceived to be more threatening to core existential interests of the Russian state than ever had NATO policy been during the Cold War, and provide and indication that the fundamental relationship between the US and Russia has escalated to a more cut throats War by other means than the Cold War ever had been.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 9:22 am
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2017 at 9:30 am by Alex K.)
more dangerous than the Soviet Union? Who posed a concrete threat of nuclear war? Are you serious?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 22979
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 11:37 am
And I'd question the assertion that the USSR was more capable of electoral mischief, given the absence of the internet which so magnified the Russian disinformation/espionage efforts.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 1:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2017 at 1:54 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(July 12, 2017 at 9:22 am)Alex K Wrote: more dangerous than the Soviet Union? Who posed a concrete threat of nuclear war? Are you serious?
Not more dangerous as a military opponent, but more dangerous as an opponent with the ability and the motivation to fundamentally subvert and debilitate our system of governance.
(July 12, 2017 at 11:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And I'd question the assertion that the USSR was more capable of electoral mischief, given the absence of the internet which so magnified the Russian disinformation/espionage efforts.
The soviet human intelligence network in the US was undoubtedly much more robust than those of Russia now.
Posts: 22979
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 2:00 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(July 12, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: (July 12, 2017 at 9:22 am)Alex K Wrote: more dangerous than the Soviet Union? Who posed a concrete threat of nuclear war? Are you serious?
Not more dangerous as a military opponent, but more dangerous as an opponent with the ability
and the motivation to fundamentally subvert and debilitate our system of governance.
(July 12, 2017 at 11:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And I'd question the assertion that the USSR was more capable of electoral mischief, given the absence of the internet which so magnified the Russian disinformation/espionage efforts.
The soviet human intelligence network in the US was undoubtedly much more robust than those of Russia now.
Perhaps, but we're talking about disseminating disinformation to a nation of tens of millions. The internet, with its partisan gathering sites and bots trawling them, no doubt makes their efforts much more efficient than using human resources on the scale the USSR would've had to use.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Quote: It's my understanding that de jure, "enemy" is defined as a nation upon which we have formally declared war
Thump,
How many people are rotting in Guantanamo as "enemy combatants" who hail from countries that we have not formally declared war upon. Besides, if we formally declare war then those people become prisoners of war and are covered by the Geneva convention.... something that republicunts would rather cut off their own balls with a rusty saw than allow.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 5:27 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2017 at 5:38 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(July 12, 2017 at 2:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: (July 12, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Not more dangerous as a military opponent, but more dangerous as an opponent with the ability
and the motivation to fundamentally subvert and debilitate our system of governance.
The soviet human intelligence network in the US was undoubtedly much more robust than those of Russia now.
Perhaps, but we're talking about disseminating disinformation to a nation of tens of millions. The internet, with its partisan gathering sites and bots trawling them, no doubt makes their efforts much more efficient than using human resources on the scale the USSR would've had to use.
The Russians did not directly tap into popularly accessible internet to disseminate disinformation. Rather they observed and assessed which of the existing new media, whether they be FOX news or Brietbart, that shared their immediate objectives of keeping Clinton out of office, and disseminated their disinformation through existing eager avenues of the agents and officers of the Trump campaign and their key supporters into those news outlets.
If the soviets had attempted to achieve the same influence, they would have done essentially the same things in this area. But the difference is the KGB would have had undoubtly more robust and thoroughly researched personnel file on the trump champaign agents and officers and their supporters, have more capability to directly bribe, intimidate and blackmail as additional tools. In addition, the Soviet Union also had available to it global influence and freedom of military, political and diplomatic maneuver to change short term perception of the global environment in coordination with the campaign to influence American election.
In summary, The Russians in 2016 really did not exhibit any potent network of agents nor pre-positioned fifth columnists, not do they have much geopolitical freedom of action to effect public perception. They really needed the cooperation of a Party full of eager traitors to pull this off. If the soviets had wanted to try, they would not have needed such a favorable alignment of conditions to make a massive difference.
Posts: 22979
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Watergate II: Lock them up.
July 12, 2017 at 5:38 pm
It's my understanding that quite a bit of the operation was semi-automated. Additionally, the information contained in Clinton's emails was almost certainly a Russian hack job. What sort of manpower do you think the old USSR would have required to sift through 30,000 communications and find the nuggets? Again, my point about the power the Russian state in this field has to do with efficiency, not efficacy.
And I'm skeptical of this idea that the Soviets could have "manufactured" a sizeable number of traitors. That is indeed very manpower intensive. The Soviets scored significant humint successes, included perhaps climbing a mole to the second chair in the CIA. I don't doubt their skills. But I find the idea that they could have thrown a few million votes the other way a little far-fetched.
Finally, Russia too has enough power-projection to skew American attitudes about global involvement. Syria rings a bell, right?
|
