FT: Council of Europe Russia sanctions could be lifted

[Shalcker]

That's just not very projecting.

Why exactly? It is working tool in attaining and maintaining power.

No media i know of claims that Russia is projecting power by appeal and attraction but by investement and misinformation.

Quick google would prove you wrong.
Why the European Right Wing Loves Putin - The Atlantic
Foreign Policy: Why Europe Is Right to Fear Putin’s Useful Idiots

"Investments" and "information" are also tools of soft power. Exactly same thing.

The whole concept of soft power is it's lack of projection of power.

Not at all.

[Mayhem]

Why exactly? It is working tool in attaining and maintaining power.

By your own linked definition this is wrong. It's a tool of influence at best.

Quick google would prove you wrong.
Why the European Right Wing Loves Putin - The Atlantic
Foreign Policy: Why Europe Is Right to Fear Putin’s Useful Idiots

"Investments" and "information" are also tools of soft power. Exactly same thing.

Could you quote out of those links where you think russia is projecting power by appeal and attraction?

I said misinformation. I know it's hard for you to read critizism of russia when you think everyone does the very same thing, but they don't.

Not at all.

Words have meaning, are you aware of that?

[Shalcker]

By your own linked definition this is wrong. It's a tool of influence at best.

You're trying to play semantics. Soft power is a way to influence those on receiving end of it. It is all about projecting power through non-violent means, trying to get wanted policy outcomes.

Could you quote out of those links where you think russia is projecting power by appeal and attraction?

Sure.

conservative-populist nationalists in both the United States and Europe view Putin as a potential ally because they are focused on a sharply contrasting set of international priorities: resisting Islamic radicalization, unwinding global economic integration, and fighting the secularization of Western societies. Top Trump advisers like incoming White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn have expressed strikingly similar views.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the push to reset with Putin reflects a desire to elevate a different set of foreign-policy concerns while downplaying, or even abandoning, the alliances that have bound European nations more tightly to each other, and to the United States, for decades.

European populist parties share a common set of priorities focused on restricting immigration, unwinding global economic and political integration (by renouncing the European Union, and, for some of these parties, NATO as well), taking tougher steps to fight Islamic radicalism, and, in most cases, opposing cultural liberalism and secularization at home. On all those fronts, they view Putin not as a threat, but as an ally.

Why they view it this way? Because tools of Russian soft power like RT and Sputnik promoted such views for long time.

Same thing as to why EU is seen as "bastion of human rights/lover of migrants" - their soft power outlets pushed this message.

I said misinformation. I know it's hard for you to read critizism of russia when you think everyone does the very same thing, but they don't.

Russia uses both true and false information in soft power; and so does US and EU.

If outcome is easier to get by lies, lies are used; if truth is good enough, truth goes instead.

Noone lies all the time.

[Shalcker]

Difference being that trying to get Russia to be more democratic would benefit the Russian people as well, while Russia messing with the US elections was purely to benefit Russian state.

That's your viewpoint based on your limited understanding of situation.

For example, preventing WW3 (expected from Clinton) would benefit whole world. There are no direct benefits to Russia to be seen yet, so you cannot claim "election interference" was self-serving.

And "trying to get Russia to be more democratic" can easily lead to civil war or revolutions, quite suboptimal outcomes. Or Communists/Nationalists coming back to power through democratic means and marginalising all other parties - also not a thing you might want.

[Mayhem]

You're trying to play semantics. Soft power is a way to influence those on receiving end of it. It is all about projecting power through non-violent means, trying to get wanted policy outcomes.

Hey sorry that your own links bite you in the ass.

Sure.

conservative-populist nationalists in both the United States and Europe view Putin as a potential ally because they are focused on a sharply contrasting set of international priorities: resisting Islamic radicalization, unwinding global economic integration, and fighting the secularization of Western societies. Top Trump advisers like incoming White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn have expressed strikingly similar views.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the push to reset with Putin reflects a desire to elevate a different set of foreign-policy concerns while downplaying, or even abandoning, the alliances that have bound European nations more tightly to each other, and to the United States, for decades.

European populist parties share a common set of priorities focused on restricting immigration, unwinding global economic and political integration (by renouncing the European Union, and, for some of these parties, NATO as well), taking tougher steps to fight Islamic radicalism, and, in most cases, opposing cultural liberalism and secularization at home. On all those fronts, they view Putin not as a threat, but as an ally.

I mean, apart from what the term projection of power actually means, going by your own link, that would be hard power as russia is influencing/coercing those people to express these views. Nowhere is the population actually drawn to russia because of its appeal and attraction even less so because of its lack of human rights, the west on the other hand is attracting and appealing by acknowledging and upholding peoples rights.

Russia uses both true and false information in soft power; and so does US and EU.

If outcome is easier to get by lies, lies are used; if truth is good enough, truth goes instead.

Noone lies all the time.

And how is this related to council of europe?

[Shalcker]

Hey sorry that your own links bite you in the ass.

You clearly haven't read it, or you would at least quote part that supports your viewpoint. Make an effort.

Here is quote from Soft Power article on Russia:
Russia

Russia has been developing its soft power by investing in various public diplomacy instruments throughout the 2000s[77] but the term was first used in an official document in 2010 as President Medvedev approved an Addendum to the national Foreign Policy Concept. The term was not defined but it was described as related to cultural diplomacy.[78] In 2013, the term appeared in a new version of the Foreign Policy Concept where the soft power was defined as "a comprehensive toolkit for achieving foreign policy objectives building on civil society potential, information, cultural and other methods and technologies alternative to traditional diplomacy."[79] In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin was named Time Person of the Year. In 2013, he was named most powerful person by Forbes magazine.[80]

I mean, apart from what the term projection of power actually means, going by your own link, that would be hard power as russia is influencing/coercing those people to express these views. Nowhere is the population actually drawn to russia because of its appeal and attraction even less so because of its lack of human rights, the west on the other hand is attracting and appealing by acknowledging and upholding peoples rights.

Exactly same argument can be made for Russian influence - "supporting and appealing to rights of native population", "rejecting NATO disastrous campaigns and supporting dissolution of NATO because it outlived it's stated goals" (that is goal often loved by left-wingers too), pointing out numerous abuses of human rights and support of dictators from West and so on.

And how is this related to council of europe?

Council of Europe is instrument of soft power.

[Mayhem]

That's your viewpoint based on your limited understanding of situation.

Talks about limited understanding of the situation.

For example, preventing WW3 (expected from Clinton) would benefit whole world. There are no direct benefits to Russia to be seen yet, so you cannot claim "election interference" was self-serving.

Comes up with an alternate reality explanation to explain why russia didn't benefit from interefering and disturbing the internal affairs of the only super power left on the planet.

And "trying to get Russia to be more democratic" can easily lead to civil war or revolutions, quite suboptimal outcomes. Or Communists/Nationalists coming back to power through democratic means and marginalising all other parties - also not a thing you might want.

And concludes with defending an undemocratic situation by chance of civil war, revolution or undemocratic institutions gaining power through democratic means.

You just can't make this up, brilliant.

[Shalcker]

Civil war in Russia is far from suboptimal tbh.

Well, destruction of EU as institution as well as NATO is far from being suboptimal either.

- - - Updated - - -

Comes up with an alternate reality explanation to explain why russia didn't benefit from interefering and disturbing the internal affairs of the only super power left on the planet.

We live in shared reality; we don't have to share perception of reality, however.

Nor can anyone really decide "my perception is right and your perception is wrong".

Everyone benefits from having multiple viewpoints.

[Mayhem]

You clearly haven't read it, or you would at least quote part that supports your viewpoint. Make an effort.

You clearly don't know what projecting power means.

Here is quote from Soft Power article on Russia:
Russia

Russia has been developing its soft power by investing in various public diplomacy instruments throughout the 2000s[77] but the term was first used in an official document in 2010 as President Medvedev approved an Addendum to the national Foreign Policy Concept. The term was not defined but it was described as related to cultural diplomacy.[78] In 2013, the term appeared in a new version of the Foreign Policy Concept where the soft power was defined as "a comprehensive toolkit for achieving foreign policy objectives building on civil society potential, information, cultural and other methods and technologies alternative to traditional diplomacy."[79] In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin was named Time Person of the Year. In 2013, he was named most powerful person by Forbes magazine.[80]

So if your first definition by the man who by your own link invented the term doesn't fit anymore you come up with a russian definition? /applaud

Exactly same argument can be made for Russian influence - "supporting and appealing to rights of native population", "rejecting NATO disastrous campaigns and supporting dissolution of NATO because it outlived it's stated goals" (that is goal often loved by left-wingers too), pointing out numerous abuses of human rights and support of dictators from West and so on.

No, it can't be made, because the people don't see it like that. They aren't drawn to russia because of how they treat their native population, quite the opposite. What dictators from West?

Council of Europe is instrument of soft power.

Right. I forgot, no explanation needed, it just is so because you say so.

- - - Updated - - -

We live in shared reality; we don't have to share perception of reality, however.

Nor can anyone really decide "my perception is right and your perception is wrong".

Everyone benefits from having multiple viewpoints.

Ok, that has nothing to do with the quote, thanks for sharing your wisdom on perception of reality, i book this under distraction, if it's ok with you?

[Shalcker]

So if your first definition by the man who by your own link invented the term doesn't fit anymore you come up with a russian definition? /applaud

It is right there in "Soft Power" article. Which you clearly haven't read.

Everyone approaches "soft power" differently because their "soft power" assets are different. Their cultures are different, their history is different, their policies are different. But they still remain "soft power"; soft power is all of them.

Anything outside of more well-defined traditional zones of influence like direct diplomacy, coups, sanctions, or military invasions.

No, it can't be made, because the people don't see it like that.

You don't see it like that.

They aren't drawn to russia because of how they treat their native population, quite the opposite.

Exactly; they are drawn to Russia not because of "how Russia treats their native population", but because of "how their own politicians treat their own population".

...and that mirrors EU approach. "Your government doesn't defend you! We offer alternative!" - works both for "human rights" and "anti-migrant sentiment".

What dictators from West?

Like Saudis.

Right. I forgot, no explanation needed, it just is so because you say so.

Read the article in full, that is all i can say to you. Maybe then you'll understand.

[Mayhem]

It is right there in "Soft Power" article. Which you clearly haven't read.

The soft power article? You mean the wikipedia page? I know it's there, but that doesn't change that Russia came up with its own definition to include stuff that the original creator didn't.

Everyone approaches "soft power" differently because their "soft power" assets are different. Their cultures are different, their history is different, their policies are different. But they still remain "soft power"; soft power is all of them.

Anything outside of more well-defined traditional zones of influence like direct diplomacy, coups, sanctions, or military invasions.

Well if everyone describes the term as meaning something different then it's useless to compare them. Derp. So we're going by the russian definition from now on?

You don't see it like that.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/...-putin-russia/

Yeah, me and the vast majority.

Exactly; they are drawn to Russia not because of "how Russia treats their native population", but because of "how their own politicians treat their own population".

Except people aren't drawn to russia at all. So how you can say Exactly; and then describing the polar opposite of what i was saying is beyond me.

...and that mirrors EU approach. "Your government doesn't defend you! We offer alternative!" - works both for "human rights" and "anti-migrant sentiment".

Except, russia isn't offering an alternative because they aren't defending its people. You're are now contradicting your appeal and attraction argument. This is fun.

Like Saudis.

Out of the left field. Saudi Arabia - Western dictatorship.

Read the article in full, that is all i can say to you. Maybe then you'll understand.

So you can't explain it then? Got it.

[Noradin]

Why exactly? It is working tool in attaining and maintaining power.

Your defintion of "power" seems to be very unique.
did you come up with it yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

For example, preventing WW3 (expected from Clinton) would benefit whole world. There are no direct benefits to Russia to be seen yet, so you cannot claim "election interference" was self-serving.

Conspiracy theories are forbidden topics.

[Shalcker]

Your defintion of "power" seems to be very unique.
did you come up with it yourself?

It is widely used definition.

In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behaviour of people.
...
The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). At one extreme, it closely resembles what an English-speaking person might term "influence", although some authors distinguish "influence" as a means by which power is used.[2] One such example is soft power, as compared to hard power.

Seriously, what's wrong with education nowdays? :/

[Slant]

It is widely used definition.

In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behaviour of people.
...
The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). At one extreme, it closely resembles what an English-speaking person might term "influence", although some authors distinguish "influence" as a means by which power is used.[2] One such example is soft power, as compared to hard power.

Seriously, what's wrong with education nowdays? :/

You tell us, mate.

[Shalcker]

The soft power article? You mean the wikipedia page? I know it's there, but that doesn't change that Russia came up with its own definition to include stuff that the original creator didn't.

"Influence in elections" and "support of alternative movements" is "soft power". It fits original definition just fine.

Well if everyone describes the term as meaning something different then it's useless to compare them. Derp. So we're going by the russian definition from now on?

...it is concept created to separate it from hard power.

Like if Russia puts troops on the streets and holds referendum there - that's hard power.

If Russia posts Facebook ads and produces TV shows and suddenly people are receptive to their position - that is soft power.
Or when RFE/RL posts anti-Putin articles for Russian liberal audience that gets shared by opposition - that's example of soft power too.

Yeah, me and the vast majority.

You do understand that 30% is great result with all propaganda going through media? "Soft power" doesn't mean "magically changes opinion of each and every person"; it is just power, influence in certain direction, there are limits of what is possible and counter-powers at work.

Except people aren't drawn to russia at all.

Enough people are. Doesn't have to be "all of them".

Except, russia isn't offering an alternative because they aren't defending its people. You're are now contradicting your appeal and attraction argument. This is fun.

If you don't understand it it doesn't mean appeal doesn't exist for some people.

For example, you know that Crimea/Donbass narrative was "Defending Russians"? :P

Out of the left field. Saudi Arabia - Western dictatorship.

Western-supported dictatorship. I never said "Western dictatorship".

So you can't explain it then? Got it.

It is not my job to translate wikipedia articles into something you can understand.

[Triks]

Why are you arguing with him? Russians will take any mistreatment from their rulers (let's call them for what they are) as long as it gives them the illusion that Russia is great.

[Mormolyce]

So sounds like this is boiling down to:

"Lift the sanctions regarding us being total pricks to everyone, or we'll start terrorizing our own"

Let them.

"Start" ahahahahahaha.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you arguing with him? Russians will take any mistreatment from their rulers (let's call them for what they are) as long as it gives them the illusion that Russia is great.

To be fair, I'm sure some of those people are paid to take it and say they like it on internet forums.

[Triks]

"Start" ahahahahahaha.

- - - Updated - - -



To be fair, I'm sure some of those people are paid to take it and say they like it on internet forums.

It doesn't take much to convince them tbh.

[Mayhem]

Why are you arguing with him? Russians will take any mistreatment from their rulers (let's call them for what they are) as long as it gives them the illusion that Russia is great.

Mostly because i'm bored.

[Shalcker]

Why are you arguing with him? Russians will take any mistreatment from their rulers (let's call them for what they are) as long as it gives them the illusion that Russia is great.

How would you like "Americans will excuse any atrocity as long as it gives them illusion that America is great"?