Russia offered to ban election meddling - Washington said NO

[Shalcker]

It's growing mainly due to consumer loans. That's not sustainable. You will need more than just oil and loans if you are expecting to grow your economy.

Why exactly is it not sustainable? You had loan-based growth in US and EU going for decades... :/
Do you realise how low is current average loan burden for families in Russia?

And we do have more then just oil and loans. Our agriculture grows, our nuclear grows, our arms sales grow... it's far from being just oil.

- - - Updated - - -

You act like they're not related goals.

I asked what you value more.

We can meddle in your democracy even if our economy will drop to North Korea levels.

The trolls aren't the main thing.

What is then? FSB and GRU are already sanctioned as is.

Pretty sure your economy is growing from it's reduced state, on account of those sanctions. 1.5% growth in an economy that just experienced multiple years of double digit inflation isn't exactly worth the same as the less than 2% growth that would have occurred without those sanctions. And again, the latest sanctions haven't even gone into effect.

Except our inflation right now is expected to end up around 3% for this year too...

New sactions are targeted - which means their broad impact on economy is going to be limited, and they can get a lot of pushback from EU too (as was seen by reactions to implications that US might somehow target Nord Stream II).

We had structural problems that had little to do with sanctions; we were headed for recession either way. We could stave it off by getting Ukraine in 2013; well, we didn't get that, so we have to go in different direction.

[Mormolyce]

I imagine this offer was about as serious as the time they offered to send election monitors to the US. Definitely not a piece of obvious politicking at all, lol.

[Brubear]

That's defence Russians use for IRA (who are, indeed, private citizens).

You could start by banning impersonation, for example. That would cut a lot of "meddling" potential, like Russians doing pages for Texas or Californian Independence. There is quite a difference between perception on opinion from "one of us" vs "one of them".

It would also make it easy for government to identify dissenters, obviously.

You start with defining what you would consider "acceptable" and what would be "unacceptable" (so that there would be even playing field), then set up common body that gets appropriate access from both sides to control that "unacceptable" things do not happen.

It is actually quite possible in US, and some argue is already happening - free speech only covers "government meddling" in speech, after all. American corporation control most of American "social media", and as we see with "Russian meddling" story it's not exactly hard to get Facebook, Twitter, and Google to get on board to censor opposing views one way or another - from outright removing/hiding their messages from feeds to "de-ranking" them toward 10-20th pages of search results.

- - - Updated - - -

You bought him, so you own him.

Not like previous presidents were much better, from Clinton to Bush.

What, exactly, would you call government banning types of speech if not "government meddling in speech"?

[Shalcker]

What, exactly, would you call government banning types of speech if not "government meddling in speech"?

And if most venues of public speech are corporation-controlled, and all those corporations engage in censorship, is it not "corporations meddling in speech"?

Which, arguably, is worse - you did not elect those corporations.

[Noradin]

Who would trust that offer from Russia?
And it is about apples and organges anyway.

[Shalcker]

Who would trust that offer from Russia?

It is all about establishing mutual understanding first and foremost.

[Noradin]

It is all about establishing mutual understanding first and foremost.

Yes, we have that, it's not to trust Russia.
Especially on something where they expect the other side to stop doing something that is obvious and perfectly legitime while they "promise" to stop doing something that they always lied about in the past and will continue lying about.

That's the mutual understanding of the situation.
Russia has a history of lying about these things.

[Shalcker]

Yes, we have that, it's not to trust Russia.

That isn't "understanding". It has no predictive value.

Especially on something where they expect the other side to stop doing something that is obvious and perfectly legitime while they "promise" to stop doing something that they always lied about in the past and will continue lying about.

What Russia did was perfectly legitimate.

Not all "democracy promotion" efforts are obvious either; or else NGOs wouldn't fight tooth and nail against being labeled "foreign agents" as long as they get foreign funding.

That's the mutual understanding of the situation.
Russia has a history of lying about these things.

So do you.

That makes it even more important to reach mutual understanding.

[Noradin]

So do you.

Me?
Sure, if you say so.

- - - Updated - - -

Not all "democracy promotion" efforts are obvious either; or else NGOs wouldn't fight tooth and nail against being labeled "foreign agents" as long as they get foreign funding.

Conspiracy theories are against the rules in this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't "understanding". It has no predictive value.

I disagree, it's value cannot be overestimated.
don't trust the guy who obviously wants to cheat you.
And this proposal is obviously set up to be biased.
It is a propaganda stunt meant to be spread the way you demonstrate, nothing more.

[Shalcker]

Conspiracy theories are against the rules in this forum.

Well, stop peddling them then.

I disagree, it's value cannot be overestimated.

Yet you're doing it all the time.

don't trust the guy who obviously wants to cheat you.
And this proposal is obviously set up to be biased.
It is a propaganda stunt meant to be spread the way you demonstrate, nothing more.

What you're doing is propaganda and nothing more; Russians can do both propaganda AND actual useful policy adjustments at the same time.

You cannot be accommodated if you refuse to tell what you want in a way we can understand and accept.

[Noradin]

You cannot be accommodated if you refuse to tell what you want in a way we can understand and accept.

I don't want anything from Russia aside from being left alone.
When Russia stops instigating wars in Europe and starts respecting human rights then we can reassess that well founded knowledge that they cannot be trusted.

[Crispin]

Russians gonna whataboutism.

[Shalcker]

I don't want anything from Russia aside from being left alone.

But you don't want to reciprocate.

When Russia stops instigating wars in Europe and starts respecting human rights then we can reassess that well founded knowledge that they cannot be trusted.

When EU and US stops instigating wars and coups in Europe and start actually forcing "those that they support" to respect human rights then we can reassess them being hypocritical assholes.

[Noradin]

But you don't want to reciprocate.

Oh yes, I do.
I want nothing to do with the Russian state at all.
Why would I?

[Shalcker]

Oh yes, I do.
I want nothing to do with the Russian state at all.
Why would I?

So why are you calling "democracy promotion" funding to NGOs "conspiracy theory" rather then "yeah, ban those too"?

What exactly makes that different in your mind?

[wunksta]

When EU and US stops instigating wars and coups in Europe and start actually forcing "those that they support" to respect human rights then we can reassess them being hypocritical assholes.

Refresh my memory, what was the last war or coup the EU/US started in Europe?

[Noradin]

So why are you calling "democracy promotion" funding to NGOs "conspiracy theory" rather then "yeah, ban those too"?

What exactly makes that different in your mind?

I don't call them such, but nice attempt.

The difference is transparency, and no, getting funds from somewhere out of the country does not automatically make someone a foreign agent.
It can be the case, but generally isn't.

[Shalcker]

Refresh my memory, what was the last war or coup the EU/US started in Europe?

NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999 for wars. Could also count 2008 Georgian war (as it happened pretty much right after US State Secretary visit).
Coup in Ukraine in 2014 for coups.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't call them such, but nice attempt.

You clearly did; why do you feel need to deny it?

The difference is transparency, and no, getting funds from somewhere out of the country does not automatically make someone a foreign agent.
It can be the case, but generally isn't.

So, getting money from Russia or being paid by Russians doesn't automatically makes it Russian meddling? "Can be the case but generally isn't"? Is that what you're trying to say?

And why are you rejecting Russian calls for more transparency? Obviously ban on election meddling wouldn't be possible without greater transparency...

[wunksta]

NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999 for wars.

We didn't start that war.

Could also count 2008 Georgian war (as it happened pretty much right after US State Secretary visit).

So the US State Secretary started a war by visiting?

Coup in Ukraine in 2014 for coups.

I'm sure that had nothing to do with the years of corruption and economic problems and violent assault on protesters.

[Noradin]

You clearly did; why do you feel need to deny it?

If you believe I did, then surely you can quote me on it?

- - - Updated - - -

So, getting money from Russia or being paid by Russians doesn't automatically makes it Russian meddling? "Can be the case but generally isn't"? Is that what you're trying to say?

And why are you rejecting Russian calls for more transparency? Obviously ban on election meddling wouldn't be possible without greater transparency...

Yes, it doesn't automatically make it Russian meddling.
It depends on the context and particulars.

And I'm not rejecting anyone's call for more transparency.
But in the case of Russia history has unfortunately taught us that we need to be suspicious.
It's probably a pretext to create a hostage situation for international blackmail.

Kind of what Erdogan tries all the time lately, just that he is even more obvious about it.