Russian social media Hacks, The Real Paranoia-Inducing Purpose

[Deleted]

Good guy would be a matter of perspective. If you are a Vietnamese person suffering the after effects of the US Agent Oranging your country, than you might have a different perspective on America's supposed moral righteousness.

US did go away, north Vietnamn dicatorhips is still there.....who have the moral high ground?

[Guaricana]

Reporter for the New Yorker investigates Russian state sponsored trolls, their tactics, strategies and effectiveness. Also how they meddle with Western governments around the world. If you want to troll, it's almost a how to manual.






http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-russian-hacks

a shadowy online Russian propaganda operation called the Internet Research Agency

That phrase here shows that propaganda exists only in Russia

paid trolls worked by relentlessly spreading their message and thus indoctrinating Russian Internet users

That's exactly how anti-goverment trolls worked in 2011 and 2012

after speaking with Russian journalists and opposition members, I quickly learned that pro-government trolling operations were

I'm sure we can trust those journalists 'cuz they are anti-goverment. It is well-known that only Russia's goverment uses propaganda and those guys fight for freedom!

The real effect, the Russian activists told me, was not to brainwash readers but to overwhelm social media with a flood of fake content, seeding doubt and paranoia, and destroying the possibility of using the Internet as a democratic space.

It reminds me of that accident with MH-17 when the next day after it all the European mass media bursted with headlines like 'Putin killed my son'. Oh, wait.. I forgot propaganda exists only in Russia.

that the murdered opposition leader Boris Nemtsov

Boris Nemtsov was never a leader of opposition. In fact he was long forgotten until he was killed. The author doesn't know Russia's realities or lies on purpose.

[Skroe]

US did go away, north Vietnamn dicatorhips is still there.....who have the moral high ground?

The irony is we're both on the same side now, thanks to China and all the wonderful things it's done.

The Vietnamese have actually built a dock and servicing facility in Cam Ranh Bay large enough only to service a US-sized aircraft carrier. They haven't offered it to us to lease yet, but that is probably coming in the next few years when they tell us what they want for it. The US operated out of it during Vietnam. The Russians left in 2002.

With respect to it's proximity to China, US getting a base there would be like the cops opening a police station across the street from the mansion of a mafia Don. It is one of the most obnoxious and incendiary containment things we could do to China.

[Macaquerie]

The irony is we're both on the same side now, thanks to China and all the wonderful things it's done.

The Vietnamese have actually built a dock and servicing facility in Cam Ranh Bay large enough only to service a US-sized aircraft carrier. They haven't offered it to us to lease yet, but that is probably coming in the next few years when they tell us what they want for it. The US operated out of it during Vietnam. The Russians left in 2002.

With respect to it's proximity to China, US getting a base there would be like the cops opening a police station across the street from the mansion of a mafia Don. It is one of the most obnoxious and incendiary containment things we could do to China.

So you don't think it's worth risking American lives to fight ISIS, but you seem intent on doing whatever it takes to provoke an apocalyptic war with China in which I can only assume all the dead will be on their side?

[Sunseeker]

Funnily enough, Russian tolls are so far down on my "shit I give a damn about" list that well, I'm not paranoid at all!

[Theodarzna]

US did go away, north Vietnamn dicatorhips is still there.....who have the moral high ground?

How many legions died to protect the French economy? After all South Vietnam was a hive of evil, and the US was also likewise engaged in the sort of totalitarianism that we so ardently speak out against.

- - - Updated - - -

Youre a dirty foreigner in the us and a plastic paddy back home

I'm not even a paddy...... I mean my bio-dad LIVED in Dublin and Belfast, but his last name was Hayden, not exactly a Brian Boru figure........ Jesus Christ man. I just can't win.

[Skroe]

So you don't think it's worth risking American lives to fight ISIS, but you seem intent on doing whatever it takes to provoke an apocalyptic war with China in which I can only assume all the dead will be on their side?

It's deterring war and conflict. It is old fashioned containment, which worked for over 50 years with the Soviet Union.

The US didn't shy away from putting ballistic missiles in Europe, keeping nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 and building bases in the far north of the world, just to keep a lid on our strategic opponent.

Doing these things limits the opponents options, and removes their room to maneuver. It encourages them to adopt a conservative strategy towards reciprocation, lest they go one step too far. During the Cold War, those actions by the US provoked certain Russian responses, but they were always limited in nature because Russia was never ready to test if our deterrence was backed by a real threat.

Hypothetically, a US base in Cam Ranh Bay would mean that China would steer clear of naval movements anywhere close to it and would force China to position much of it's Naval forces to the south of the country to defend against an attack from there. With US forces also based in Japan, Philippines and South Korea, the word for that would be "surrounded".

We're actually seeing the converse of that in the South China Sea, with China building artificial islands and putting air strips and anti-aircraft weapons on these artificial islands. They're attempting to do the exact same thing, to us, to limit our options to maneuver, to force the US out of the Western Pacific and break our alliances with countries in the region.

The essence of deterrence is a maximalist strategy. That means we that we need to invest in deterrence in every way possible, from every angle, or there is no real deterrent effect. Otherwise it isn't deterrence at all. It's a bluff.

[Shalcker]

Take for example Vladmir Putin. He wants to play Wikileaks games? Let's play Wikileaks games. George W Bush and Obama has had a "Putin Team" in the FBI, CIA and Treasury department figuring out the structure, function and stash locations of the gigantic criminal enterprise that is the reality of Vladmir Putin's regime. They've been mapping his connections, the money flow and everything you'd expect of a Mafia Don, since at least 2007. A few years back, they released some statements, because it turns out, Vlad Putin may in fact be the richest man in Europe, if not the world, all from stolen Russian funds.

...and then provided exactly ZERO proof of this finding. And most often quoted 40 billion figure wouldn't even make him richest man in Europe, nevermind world...

I mean, come on, for freaking sanction list "of Putin's closest circle" in March 2014 they had to ask Navalny (Russian opposition guy) instead of their own State Department, and then went with that list verbatim... i guess that is what passes for "figuring out" in US today. "We know a guy who knows a guy who tells us who they are, he is well known in social media and on top of google search too!" Great CIA work!

This qualifies as intelligence gathering on a foreign leader. But what if the United States started slow drip releasing everything it has on Vlad and his regime, just to smear him. SO the entire world can see the epic magnitude of his corruption. Would it destroy him? No. The Russian people are are on their knees at the mercy of a "strong leader" as usual and they'll excuse anything their leaders do. But it would force him to response. It would dominate his life and force his entire corrupt edifice to uproot and reorient itself. It will keep him occupied for ages. And it'll make doing business with him and his regime - the most important thing for Russia - virtually impossible. Companies will avoid a nuclear armed mafia don, like the plague.

Ah, another fantasy of Great America being able to bend anyone to their will, only being held back by incompetent people in power unwilling to use their world greatest intelligence gathering options! But the next one will surely fix that! Nevermind that there are no good candidates at all...

Why even release any data? Just tell companies you'll sanction them if they do business with Russia, no need for reasons!
...wait, but trade with Russia actually grown since sanctions were implemented despite Russian boogie-man status. I guess that's also Obama's fault!

- - - Updated - - -

The truth is a strong ally, but US are not that ruthless that Russia is on the (dis)information front. Take WMD vs Green men, US recognized there was no WMD, Russia still denies there are russian troops in Ukraine.

Recognized after how many years of searching for them?

Perhaps eventually Ukrainians will also lose hope of finding those thousands of Russian troops holding them back from making their country great... :P

[Deleted]

So you don't think it's worth risking American lives to fight ISIS, but you seem intent on doing whatever it takes to provoke an apocalyptic war with China in which I can only assume all the dead will be on their side?

You're talking to someone that is supporting the arming of guys like the gentlemen from that story a few days back, the ones that tortured and beheaded a 12 years old kid. Dont look it up. Seriously, dont. And these guys are actually supposed to be the moderate guys.
So yeah keep that in mind.

[Skroe]

You're talking to someone that is supporting the arming of guys like the gentlemen from that story a few days back, the ones that tortured and beheaded a 12 years old kid. Dont look it up. Seriously, dont. And these guys are actually supposed to be the moderate guys.
So yeah keep that in mind.

Wait what? I actually have no clue what you're talking about.

[Deleted]

Wait what? I actually have no clue what you're talking about.

What, did you already forget your support to the armed rebel groups in Syria?

- - - Updated - - -

Because apparently it "damaged russia so an ongoing civil war in Syria is good"

[Skroe]

What, did you already forget your support to the armed rebel groups in Syria?

- - - Updated - - -

Because apparently it "damaged russia so an ongoing civil war in Syria is good"

No, just not what specifically you're referring to, as in the individual. Anyway it doesn't matter. it's not important. You know my thesis about Syria and Russia. I stick to it. It's worked.

[Damajin]

Have you really read my posts? Are you absolutely sure? Because you imply I'm an advocate of military interventionism and nation building. I most certainly am not. Iraq was a titanic geopolitical catastrophe for us. The US must never repeat Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan went off the rails when we decided to remake a society we barely understand and whose population isn't prepared in any sense for a western-style democratic transformation. This has been a consistent thing in my post for many, many years. My best friend just got back from his second tour in Afghanistan. I held my breath for nine months. You think I want him there, mostly showing the flag, in a war whose best outcome is an unstable illiberal democracy in the bottom quarter of the human development index for the next 100 years? To me, he's worth more than all of Afghanistan. A lot more.

My ENTIRE foreign policy in short, is built around

(1) Deterring China, America's greatest 21st century challenge.
(2) Deterring Russia, a declining fallen empire that threatens to drag us all to hell with it.
(3) Preserving and expanding the Liberal Western World order
(4) Democracy and justice promotion through non-military means and institution building
(5) Promoting Economic liberalism and free AND FAIR trade
(6) Fighting terrorism in a cost effective, low footprint-high impact kind of the way.


You want to know who my American villians are, Trump aisde? The idiots who want to send 80,000 US troops into Ramadi to kick ISIS's ass or something. Or send 100,000 US troops to fight Iran or find some other dragon to slay. As if two trillion dollar wars in 15 years weren't enough. The US military and US power base must rebuild after 15 years of conflict in order to focus on deterring China and Russia and the Liberal World Order. That does not mean, remotely, interventionism, anywhere. Every intervention, every bombed dropped, every life thrown away, every resource spent, weakens us against the threats that truly matter.

Does that make my foreign policy clear to you? Because the person you describe and me are totally different.

The first sentence you quoted was a general statement at heart, though I’ve read enough of your posts to see at least some inkling of perceived overlap between your views and the particular things I addressed there. I’m no expert of course so thanks for the clarification but there’s still some issues with what you said.

Your 1 and 2 are currently achieved largely through interventionism, proxy conflicts and of course the military ‘encircling’ we’re engaging in now. Now we certainly need some defense against them, as they rightly do against us but we’re not playing defense as much as we’re playing the bully and still trying to assert that Manifest Destiny thing. Your number 3 is achieved largely through the combination of globalization and interventionism, and in many cases those two principles operate hand in hand and have quite consistently synergistic goals and strategies which tend to favor the Establishment and its investors both national and international far more than the average citizen. The rest of your points are fine and admirable but again are far too often subject to the same authoritarian reliances because our military, political and economic structure is addicted to that one trick pony and we’ve got so much entrenched in the Establishment that you’re not likely to see dramatic revisions of those policies for quite some time, as they’ve proven they really don’t give a shit about anything except pursuing the path that they are.

So if we could see some actual revision of these policies both foreign and domestic and a abandonment of interventionism and the like I’d think you’d find far more people especially those who are exceptionally patriotic but also exceptionally critical and skeptical of it go full throated in their support for the direction of the country and get behind things in a meaningful sociological way. I’m not interested in a completely dove oriented US but we certainly don’t have to be as hawkish as we’ve been for the majority of the last century. That requires a rather strong separation from our current tactics and policies.

[Deleted]

No, just not what specifically you're referring to, as in the individual. Anyway it doesn't matter. it's not important. You know my thesis about Syria and Russia. I stick to it. It's worked.

Yeah you didn't specifically said "let's arm those three guys". Yet that group is armed and supported by the US led group.
What, you're not comfortable when as a result of the ideologies you support, 12 years old kids get tortured and beheaded on camera?

But anyway yes, it was just a kindly reminder directed to the person talking to you, shedding some light on some of your ideologies. Call it a warning to not be surprised about your replies basically.
You can start chain reporting now

[wooters]

If there was a suppression of whistleblowing, you'd have a point - it's well known by this stage that Wikileaks is being heavily influenced by the Russian government given Assange's ties to them.

Assange doesn`t have a tie to anyone that affects WikiLeaks. plenty of shit have been dug up on Russians as well lol

[Deleted]

Assange doesn`t have a tie to anyone that affects WikiLeaks. plenty of shit have been dug up on Russians as well lol

It's fine it's all part of the plan.

[...] that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime."

[wooters]

It's deterring war and conflict. It is old fashioned containment, which worked for over 50 years with the Soviet Union.

The US didn't shy away from putting ballistic missiles in Europe, keeping nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 and building bases in the far north of the world, just to keep a lid on our strategic opponent.

Doing these things limits the opponents options, and removes their room to maneuver. It encourages them to adopt a conservative strategy towards reciprocation, lest they go one step too far. During the Cold War, those actions by the US provoked certain Russian responses, but they were always limited in nature because Russia was never ready to test if our deterrence was backed by a real threat.

Hypothetically, a US base in Cam Ranh Bay would mean that China would steer clear of naval movements anywhere close to it and would force China to position much of it's Naval forces to the south of the country to defend against an attack from there. With US forces also based in Japan, Philippines and South Korea, the word for that would be "surrounded".

We're actually seeing the converse of that in the South China Sea, with China building artificial islands and putting air strips and anti-aircraft weapons on these artificial islands. They're attempting to do the exact same thing, to us, to limit our options to maneuver, to force the US out of the Western Pacific and break our alliances with countries in the region.

The essence of deterrence is a maximalist strategy. That means we that we need to invest in deterrence in every way possible, from every angle, or there is no real deterrent effect. Otherwise it isn't deterrence at all. It's a bluff.

history have shown is was the US that was the most aggressive part during the cold war...and your "containment" strategy is what led the world into almost open nuclear war so many times because the Russians were constantly provoked unnecessary and became insanely paranoid as a result(remember, you had the weapon first..so they were always playing catchup). to say it worked in hindsight is not so clever imo just on account of us being alive today...it might as well have ended the human race

the new peaceful russia after the cold war mainly created by gorbatsjov were deliberately torpedoed financially by the US in the early 90`s...paving the way for uprising, extreme patriotism and war hawks like putin could take the power for themselves backed now by an angry population that felt betrayed. also the world islamist terror we see today were basically kick started by the us government under bush in 2003. its too much too go through but all in all...your foreign policy have been atrocious since 1944 really

[Powerogue]

You can't poison the internet with something it's been suckled on since it was born.

[Independent voter]

Even with Russia's army of social media shills it didn't stop the online opposition to the Putin regime. What did? Boris Nemtsov's assassination.

BBC did an investigation into Nemtsov's assassination.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31693234

It would be like Trump assassinating Hillary Clinton in the US.

[Venant]

What, did you already forget your support to the armed rebel groups in Syria?

- - - Updated - - -

Because apparently it "damaged russia so an ongoing civil war in Syria is good"

To be fair, it was really effective anti-Russian foreign policy when the US backed that Saudi guy in Afghanistan, and there were absolutely no negative long term consequences from that.