Presumably one of the issues being discussed here, such as mitigating the effects of Russia's wildly successful manipulation campaigns that have resulted in both US policy and cultural shifts in favor of Russian interests. To skip some steps in this comment chain, and at risk of being presumptuous, pick an option from this technically-exhaustive list:
Do you believe that:
1. Russia has not engaged in misinformation-based influence campaigns targeting US citizens
2. Russia has engaged in such campaigns but to no tangible effect, and they therefore require no response
3. Russia's influence campaigns saw success, but not to the detriment of the US, and they therefore require no response
4. Russia's success harms US interests, but it would be hypocritical to actively respond given the US' past actions
5. Russia's success is tethered to cultural shifts, which are impermanent and therefore don't necessitate an active response
6. Russia's success can only be effectively countered by the gov't, so civilian attempts at helping are futile
7. None of the items above relate to the topic of discussion in this thread, i.e. this comment effectively strawman-ing
8. The above points are non-exhaustive
I'm quite sure an intelligent person with an open mind can be convinced that each of the above points is false, save the last one.
Okay, a video attributing fault of the UA crisis to the West. Which of the options I listed are you attempting to back with this source, or put another way, which of my implied claims does this counter? Help me see the relevance.
If we rewind the comment chain back to the root, and just consider this video in the context of today's meeting - can you explain how the points made by the video or the general attribution of fault for the crisis lends support to the strategy and conduct displayed earlier today?
If you want to talk about whether or not the US is at fault for the war, you're in the wrong thread.
I 100% agree. I am also deeply dissatisfied with the state of diplomacy. I also think these negotiations should be handled by a strong and independent Europe.
Regardless of who is pulling the strings, they should be negotiating and ending conflict, like in the Minsk agreements, which were torn down by the west. In fact, Angela Merkel herself stated in 2022 that the 2014 peace agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time to militarize and eventually join NATO.
To follow your line of questioning, which I do appreciate, It would be that Russia has engaged in influence campaigns in the West, of course, but that we do that the West does this as a matter of course worldwide and our schemes are much more elaborate, anyway.
I also agree about in 5, Russia is convieniently riding a wave of populist conservatism which Putin (cynically, corruption-based, or otherwise) aligned with the Orthodox alignment in Russia. (Men/Women are different, global woke policy, SDG development goals etc) Many working class people are sick to death of effete urbane progressive politics (doesn't even really benefit any core economics) I would say this is a bigger propaganda play from Russia = Give sympathetic activists ammunition for cultural victories (that were fragile and brainless Western ideas anyway.)
The problem with this granular obsession of a deep Russia conspiracy inside the US is that you aren't even really aware about what the propaganda they are saying on their side and not really cogniscent that Western foreign policies engage in pretty ugly propaganda, unlawful killings as a matter business.
Russia propaganda is simply more advanced version of the type of propaganda we were doing anyway. It's just that you don't see your own side as capable of misinformation, influence peddling worldwide and they are guilty of it.
EUROMAIDAN was a Western intelligence op — and you worry about what; a few scary Facebook ads? Is there a particular piece of misinfo on RT you are concerned about?
Look into contemporary funding and actions by USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, many NGOs and media organisations. It's pretty blatant and now starting to be documented by our own media:
You want some kind of press release where the US state department announced it as a “coup”?
Are you even slightly familiar with US foreign policy in the world? Do you know about what happened in Kosovo/Yugoslavia? Or the Middle East, South America history? Do you know the typical function of US foreign policy arm is to orchestrate regime change?
You really are a special kind of midwit if you can’t see that by now.
From a quick (and shallow) skim of the thread, I gather that you're representing a minority viewpoint—inevitably so, because this forum is majority Western and naturally reflects the Western point of view. When commenters find themselves in a minority/contrarian position on the internet, they often resort to name-calling and other barbs. It's understandable as a response to pressure, but it's not ok to do that here. We can't apply the rules differently depending on such factors.
At the same time, it's in HN's interest to have contrarian views represented, as long as people do it while respecting the site guidelines. So when I run across an example like this, I often try to make this argument in the hope of persuading the person in your position! It doesn't usually work, but one can hope.
It's also in your own interests to follow the rules, because when you break them, you discredit whatever truth you may be arguing for. That doesn't help you or anyone else, and majorities are always looking for an easy excuse to dismiss minorities. (I'm not talking about the current topic here; I believe all majorities do this.)
Do you believe that:
1. Russia has not engaged in misinformation-based influence campaigns targeting US citizens
2. Russia has engaged in such campaigns but to no tangible effect, and they therefore require no response
3. Russia's influence campaigns saw success, but not to the detriment of the US, and they therefore require no response
4. Russia's success harms US interests, but it would be hypocritical to actively respond given the US' past actions
5. Russia's success is tethered to cultural shifts, which are impermanent and therefore don't necessitate an active response
6. Russia's success can only be effectively countered by the gov't, so civilian attempts at helping are futile
7. None of the items above relate to the topic of discussion in this thread, i.e. this comment effectively strawman-ing
8. The above points are non-exhaustive
I'm quite sure an intelligent person with an open mind can be convinced that each of the above points is false, save the last one.