Why would I go to the ones where you are? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
Why would I go to the ones where you are? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Can't remember inviting you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Of course you don't remember, you were hitting the schnapps pretty hard by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I know we're terribly off topic by now (then again, there are still Trump and Hillary and what else is there to say? :sweatdrop: ), but you actually did, about ten years ago or so, in the chat. You said you organize techno parties and I should let you know if I ever want to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's how much you have changed, the cynicism is really changing you, just like my link said. :no:
As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY
Oh stopped doing that, fun times. And cynism is just facing realityQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The Clintons have a long history of conspiring with ducks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
:laugh4:
In any case, what I thought was an innocent joke isn't all that innocent, unreal that this is actually a well thought over part of the campaign
Might as well put this here - nice enough article.
Quote:
PUTIN, SYRIA, AND WHY MOSCOW HAS GONE WAR-CRAZY
This is also why, IMO, US and European administrations cannot approach the situation by 'quarantining' Russia (even assuming that were politically and economically practicable at this time) but rather by somehow forcing a consolidation of primary Russian interests. Russia is doing this to the US, so perhaps it may be worth trying to manipulate the Russian public's perceptions such that they no longer take certain events as injuries, thereby undercutting the same sentiments that Putin both foments and responds to in his overt hostile or bad-faith gestures.Quote:
Earlier this week, to get a whiff of the new atmosphere, I went to the studios of Channel One, the country’s main state broadcaster, to appear as a guest on a daytime political talk show. Russian television stations have long devoted much of their time to dissecting the minutiae of America’s every political hiccup, a consequence of the Russian ruling class’s simultaneous fascination and revulsion with the U.S. political system. I was the only American on set, and it was clear I was meant to play the role of the pitiable imbecile and birthday-party piñata: everyone would get a chance to step up and have a whack. The host of the program, Artem Sheinin, noted that it was the thirtieth anniversary of the Reykjavik summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, talks that ultimately led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which reduced missile stockpiles in both countries. “Some people think this is when our country began its surrender; others say it marks the end of the Cold War,” Sheinin said. “But, as we see from our conversation today, the Cold War wasn’t brought to an end, and, in my view, can’t be.”
As a digital animation of a grizzly bear clawing away at a bald eagle played on a large screen behind him, Sheinin turned to me. “Does it not seem to you,” he asked, “that all these children dying in Syria, in eastern Aleppo, this fear about Iskanders—all this is a result of how you have been pushed into being the word’s gendarme, and want to remain as such?” I fumbled through an answer. Russia obviously sees itself as fighting against U.S. hegemony, I said, but what is it fighting for? What is its strategic vision for itself and the world? Another guest, a Russian parliamentary deputy, began to shout, “For Yugoslavia! For Libya! For Syria! For everything you have done these past twenty years!” He was nearly hysterical, but his answer was truthful: Putin’s foreign policy at this moment is, in large part, about avenging the wrongs inflicted on Russia over the past decades, the insults and grievances borne by a generation. It may be a tall order to achieve by January 20th of next year. But Putin may certainly try.
Easily said...
And done, propaganda isn't actually supposed to be believed that's not it's purpose. People must know that something is bullshit, and there is nothing they can do against. North_Korean's for example aren't dumb. They know that the Great Leader didn't score a hole in one the firstt time he played golf, but what to do about it
Got a good interview with a former KGB-spy back home, it's pretty long but it gives great insight how things really work
That's a naive view. Propaganda isn't just "I'm/we're so great", but a redirection of attention, the spread of disinformation, the setting of agendas...
Edit: Indeed, part of the cited article's discussion would suggest a turn by Russia towards behaving like a bigger North Korea in terms of the projected self-image for national relations.
I'll look it up for you when I'm home,it's quite fascinating. Mostly on how the KGB actually operates in the west, but also how blatantly lying is actually a tactic back home because knowing that something is a lie is disempowering. Cold War era though
Aww, but don't you worry, your problems can also be taken seriously:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
http://www.fearof.net/fear-of-ducks-...natidaephobia/
Quote:
The fear of ducks phobia can be a debilitating anxiety condition, wherein, no matter what one is doing or where s/he is in the world, they feel the constant presence of a duck or goose.
How typically United Statesian, if people somewhere in the world don't agree with the US, the US needs to manipulate them until they more or less fall in line. Wouldn't it be better to establish some kind of rational approach that convinces people that there is no need to hate one another rather than talk about manipulating the stupid foreigners? This kind of talk always reeks of arrogance and imperialism and that's why many oppose the US in the first place. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
See, that's exactly what I meant, but you Euroweenies get so sensitive when we don't pay utmost respect to your pride. :wink:Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to establish some kind of rational approach that convinces people that there is no need to hate one another rather than talk about manipulating the stupid foreigners?
Maybe you don't like the wording, but attempting to "convince" the Russians to "change their minds" about how they perceive their own role in the world and how they perceive America relative to that is precisely manipulation.
Maybe if you use the word in a very wide sense, yet it still implies complete lack of action on the side of the one being manipulated, whereas convinbcing implies that they use their own rationality to come to the conclusion that you are correct. It gives more credit to the recipient. You can also manipulate a lever, a knob or a chair, but you cannot convince them. Not to forget that manipulating humans usually has a very bad connotation that you cannot just ignore. If convince is what you meant, then I guess we can agree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You can't get around that connotation, since changing minds is not for altruistic purposes but for the sake of changing how their government acts and calculates.
That's your intention, not mine. I'd rather see Russians (or anyone for that matter) as friends than as enemies. The change of their governments' behavior would be a logical side effect of such an approach. Given the things people say about Putin, it may not be a given however. You can also find plenty of people in Iran who like the USA, but their government is not so eager so far. Pride, greed and stupidity/lack of education tend to get in the way of possible friendships, and that is as true here as it is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The question you obviously asked yourself is also how you would go about that given that their government does everything it can to keep foreign influences out. The internet seems somewhat divided by language barriers for a majority of people even in Western countries. Things like student exchange programs will probably not change a lot of minds in the time frame we're aiming at. Not to forget that a lot of us like to see Russia as the big devil, too, so maybe we should begin by curbing the vitriol coming from our side that they like to parade around on their state-controlled media to keep the vitriol on their side flowing. :dizzy2:
That's not the issue - the major problem is that the Russian people, while overall well-inclined toward America, do not trust America. Their government doesn't have to work hard in this regard. In fact, much of what Putin does is indeed as a response to public sentiment toward "American aggression", meaning he has a mandate (and personal interest) in appearing to make tough stands against American influence. Putin is not a corrupt third-world dictator looking out only for his "clan", he is a legitimate (as far as he can be) leader of the Russian state and he does ultimately act with Russian strategic interests in mind. The angle that is the sticking point here, and what it might pay most to leverage, is that, as a dictator, appearances and innuendos are crucial for maintaining his own standing, and therefore his own power networks and rule, and therefore the strategic interest of a coherent and internally-stable Russia. If the Russian people can be convinced to see at least some actions as other than simply naked aggression intent on keeping Russia down, or be convinced of the merits of some sort of terms of understanding, then Putin from the dictatorial standpoint has less room to maneuver aggressively in the international field.Quote:
their government does everything it can to keep foreign influences out
And that alone would be a significant step to making Russia less of a problem/pariah and more of a partner.
So how would you go about convincing them. I brought the quoted part up as a side-issue because you can't just establish a media network there that tells them how much you love Russia or something old-fashioned like that. How can you establish trust if their strategic interests oppose yours in quite a few cases and you're not willing to give in on yours? You only need to be intent on keeping America up and that necessitates keeping Russia down in a world where the strategic interests of both countries focus on ever more rare resources and strategic partners. Or are you saying you want to share even if it means the US economy suffers a bit for the benefit of the Russian one? Or are we still talking about fooling them to believe that while doing something else entirely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Correction: ... act with WHAT HE THINKS Russian strategic interests...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And he thinks this interest in Russia being a superpower.
The strategic interest you forwarded is opposite to the one Putin has in mind. Anyway, what Putin has been doing for the last two and a half years does anything but getting him closer to a coherent and internally-stable Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
One should assume that Putin acts rationally, like Husar I think it's better to improve relationships. If we act rationally and improve our relationship with the Kremlin we will all be better of. First step, stop surrounding them the west seems to be almost begging for escalation
nigga i dont knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, it's pretty straightforward as far as establishing buffers goes. Iran wants them too, and China, and Japan, and India, and Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and South Africa, heck why not bring up Argentina and Chile while we're at it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Just as the US administration and Ukrainian administrations do not have unlimited practical options for how to approach the situation, neither does Putin. He has the Russian bear by its ears, and he is driving it where he can. Even if we were to imagine him desiring such a thing, he has no way to unilaterally defuse the Syrian and Ukrainian theaters without crippling his own domestic reputation and setting back Russian political ambitions by a decade.Quote:
The strategic interest you forwarded is opposite to the one Putin has in mind. Anyway, what Putin has been doing for the last two and a half years does anything but getting him closer to a coherent and internally-stable Russia.
I suggest what he is simply hoping for is to pull off as much bravado as he can before the issues become frozen over a few years, the world loses patience, and a new status quo settles in. That's the single way he can avoid either voting himself out of office or continually escalating aggression until someone needs to call a bluff or the European Union gets distressed enough to temporarily back Russia against American complaints.
You're smarter than that and cannot really be that naive. This is the game as it has always been played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Russian -- US Relations should really be it's own thread topic.
Project Veritas is not a reliable source. The founder has a proven track record of doctoring videos conjure up controversy about non-existent issues. He's even been convicted for entering a Senator's office on false pretenses, posing as a repairman with the intent of bugging his telephone line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And he's supporting Donald Trump, surprise surprise....
I'm afraid I really am that naive, I took it for something completily harmless. There I go priding on being cynical. Of to flute-lessonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Americans could find this interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g Lecture by ex-kgb, warning, very conservative slant, and long
@Monty, couldn't find the study on propaganda I no longer have acces to the uni
Well, of course the article and others like it do deal with American administrations. more specifically Hillary/Trump perspectives and the Obama/Kerry approaches (including speculation on the months leading up to office transfer). For the moment that's not what Orgahs are commenting on, but this doesn't belong in the Ukraine thread and a new topic would likely be DOA.Quote:
Russian -- US Relations should really be it's own thread topic.
Let it run the course.
Putin keeps bringing up that the US public doesn't agree with US aggression, so how are you so sure that Russian public perception will affect its strategic interests in any way? Public perception in Russia is not going to be manipulated, and certainly not by the west. As long as US aggression appears to be more aggressive, Putin will continue to balance that out and public perception will maintain its course just like it is in Iran.
It's hard to shape public perception the way you want it when the country is being suffocated by the manipulator. A Syrian child laborer in Turkey makes as much money in three days as the average worker in Syria makes in a month with sanctions at work, so public perception is already effectively being driven by the US in the other direction with these resistance states.
I don't see the west reversing this because its interests prevent it from doing so.
Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.
Hillary Clinton:
Washington "Game" Experience (FLOTUS, Foundation work) = Check
Legislative Experience (Supported Bills as FLOTUS, 6 years in Senate) = Check
Executive Experience (4 Years as Secretary of State) = Check
Economic Experience (Senate Budget Committee) = Check minus/meh
Military Leadership Experience) Senate Armed Services Committee, Consulted as Sec State on some military issues) = Check minus
Personal Strengths: Cerebral, not prone to temper, spouse has held Presidency suggesting truly aware of job difficulty
Personal Drawbacks: Not an inspirational speaker, ethically challenged [note: this does not deviate far from the general opinion most in USA hold of all politicians]
Donald Trump:
Washington "Game" Experience (none [note many of his supporters feel this to be positive]) = Miss
Legislative Experience (Used lobbyists for corporate advantage) = Miss
Executive Experience (Decades, thoroughly comfortable making decisions) = Check [would be check plus, BUT executive power in Washington is more "hedged" and restricted than that of a CEO. Transition will be rough]
Economic Experience (Decades in Business; comfortable with large numbers and scope) = Check plus
Military Leadership Experience (none) = Miss
Personal Strengths: Decisive, risk-taker, experienced negotiator, not beholden to Washington establishment
Personal Drawbacks: Mixed skills as public speaker, has a temper, risk-taker, prefers off-the-cuff interaction too much, rumored behavior strongly offensive to women
Campaign Concerns:
Clinton has raised more than $449M while Trump has raised roughly $220M, including more than $55M of his own money.
Clinton has 489 staffed campaign offices compared to Trump's 178.
Clinton's campaign staff is roughly 800 strong; Trump's is under 400.
Electoral College Votes in "safe" states at start of 2016: Clinton 182, Trump 140
...and the latest polls? LINK. Two major polls show trump closing the gap that had opened back to a dead heat.
THAT is how much many Americans LOATHE Hillary Clinton. She is, prima facie, vastly more qualified to serve as President than Trump. Unless you actively loathe Democrat policies [I do, but many in the USA disagree with me]...there is simply no logical reason that this campaign isn't a totally foregone conclusion joke.
I still think she wins in the EC....but the comedians that were joking that both nominees were lucky to be facing the only person they could possibly hope to beat seem to be evaluating things just right.