Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1337biz | Hacker News Reader

I find it amazing how strong the anti-Russian rumor mongering is in this election.

I thought we already had reached the point where 'Terrorism' has replaced 'Russia' as the perpetual enemy figure. Is Trump's soft stand on Russia so scary to some? Apparently attributing anything unattributable to Russia is having a massive comeback right now.

If China and others would at least be occasionally mentioned as potential alternative attackers, these reports would look a lot less as some one sided opinion engineering operations.

View on HN

Aside from the fact that Russia really does seem to be implicated in this...

That you're hearing so much about Russia this year is due to the fact that the Democrats have made it something of a theme of this campaign season [0].

I would suggest that, the Republicans having already "won" terrorism messaging, the Democrats have embraced anti-Russia propaganda so they can have their own bogeyman to fight against. With Trump's documented ties to Russia, the Democrats can "own" attacks on Russia without risk of retaliation.

[0] https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-...

All "implicated" means is accused. The fact that the Democrats are accusing the Russians creates an implication. What's short is the evidence.

Democrats are campaigning to the patriotic right of a populist candidate, and they can't be anti-Muslim because the populist candidate planted his flag in that on nearly the first day as far to the right as you could go short of internment camps. Russians are all that is left, and they're stuck with trying to make Ukraine sound like a terrifying first move towards something.

Perhaps there is evidence as others have suggested (as I am sure there is of US involvement in Russian affairs). In fact it would be surprising if Russia weren't at it. This is after all the age of cyber warfare so it is extremely unlikely that all major powers aren't trying to coerce the system to their advantage. That said it seems that most of the Russian scare tactics are coming out of the Hilary camp as an attempt to deflect from her own shortcomings. Every time something illegal she did comes up the Russian scaremongering gets ramped up a notch. Classic deflection tactics. It is also convenient given that Trump seems to be pro-Putin and many Americans have been conditioned to fear the Russians for decades. America has already lost this election regardless of the outcome.

This is really due to the increasing tension between the two super powers. Russia has been on the loose, and Obama has done little to challenge them to try and reign them in. I would suspect this is why they get blamed for everything - regardless of the evidence. It's very "cold war era" feeling to me when both sides would blame each other for the smallest thing.

Lots of increasing geopolitical drama and it probably won't end anytime soon.

> Obama has done little to challenge them to try and reign them in.

Our sanctions regime crashed their economy (or at minimum, exacerbated their long running problems). It's difficult to say "little to challenge them".

I wasn't aware their economy had crashed. Could you provide a source?

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=USD&view=5Y

First the illegal annexation of Crimea was "complicated," and now the Russian economy isn't in a freefall? Where are you getting your news?

That's not evidence of a Russian-specific crash. All markets across the globe had a correction in January 2016. According to your chart, Russia has apparently bounced back, just like the rest of the world. This is the DJIA: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EDJI?p=%5EDJI

Do you have a more specific source?

I think his chart is using the wrong date range. Here is a better one: https://encrypted.google.com/finance/chart?espv=2&q=CURRENCY...

Thanks!

As a US taxpayer, this saber rattling towards Russia makes me unhappy.

Russia has 3 foreign military bases. We have something like 600?

We have announced plans to spend a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons, and we are placing a few of them near Russia's borders - as far as I know they are not placing weapons along our borders!

Who profits from this? So obvious that I won't even name the usual suspects.

> We have announced plans to spend a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons

The U.S. spends a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons per 20 years. [1]

I agree that disarmament is a credible and the optimum mechanism for reducing risk of the use of nuclear weapons in war and in testing. I think that using hyperbole discredits earnest efforts to this aim. The broadside against secret profiteers ("the usual suspects"?) compounds this.

[1] http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/a-diversion...

>I find it amazing how strong the anti-Russian rumor mongering is in this election.

Because there's evidence? If there was countervailing evidence that some other organization was at fault, I'm all ears, but there's currently only one probable explanation.

There has been quite a few claims of Russian hacks recently that were based on very weak evidence. Additionally, most of the stronger claims came from anonymous gov sources without any public evidence at all. So this is why people are becoming skeptical of the Russian fear mongering.

And yes,they are a threat and are hacking public networks just like the NSA, GCHQ, PRC, etc but it seems like the automatic reflex to blame Russia for everything. Which is unscientific and risky - for example, it makes it easy for other adversaries to fool the victims into thinking they are Russian just by using a Russian proxy server to conduct attacks.

Give me a break. The issue is not only that Trump has taken a "soft stand" on Russia, as you put it. It's that the guy running his campaign (Paul Manafort) has very clear ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, and Trump himself appears to have financial ties to Russia. Not to mention that everything the guy is saying publicly about Russia is against even the Republican playbook, so it looks like he is aligning closer to Russia over the United States.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/article/2016/may/02/pa...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-s...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financ...

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Because there's evidence. The same way there's evidence of ransomware and other malware industries being propped up by Russia, Russia cheating in the Olympics, Putin murdering journalists and rivals, Putin annexing parts of Ukraine, Putin powering the eastern conflict in Ukraine, Putin purposely bombing US aligned rebels in Syria, etc, etc. All these things were denied by Russia and Russophiles. And that's on top of Russia's incredibly corrupt economic system, where 35% of the wealth in Russia belong to about 100 people.

I think a lot of Russophiles are getting the big dose of reality we've been warning about for quite some some. I don't think how its even possible to start giving Russia this benefit of the doubt considering its leadership's recent actions and the evidence we have. If you think Russia doesn't have a non-stop cyberwar with us then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Ukraine situation is way more complicated than Putin simply annexing it. Lots of history there and lots of US meddling as well as Russia.

Additionally, our economic system is far from perfect too. Ever heard of occupy Wall Street? Lots of wealth inequality here.

Awareness of the facts does not a Russophile make. Russia is a global superpower and it acts like a superpower, as do other superpowers.

> Ukraine situation is way more complicated than Putin simply annexing it.

Look, it's Europe. Everyone here has a history with everyone here.

Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, in violation of every possible treaty and its own constitution, is not a matter of opinion. It's also first in Europe since WW2.

Russia isn't the only country that violates international treaties and its own constitution...

Ever heard of Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European affairs during the Ukrainian crisis? "Fuck the EU" she said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Have you read the transcript outside this phrase? It's always the profanity part being quoted, for lack of anything controversial.

But well, Britain said essentially the same during Brexit, and I don't see Putin fans upset with that.

I know you make it some tit-for-tat scheme, where Russia is justified to retaliate the USA for some real or perceived sin. However Russia doesn't leash off on its stated archenemy, as humiliation of defeat is not something Putin is looking for. Instead it backstabs Ukraine, the nation without a functioning military and reeling from domestic crisis, which is hardly responsible for injustices of the United States.

"Putin fan" is not a term I would use to describe myself or anyone who is seriously analyzing the situation from a rational unbiased perspective. Nor would I use "tit-for-tat," "backstab," and "archenemy" to describe the events that have transpired.

It makes it hard to discuss/analyze history with someone who is assessing the situation in those comic book terms with a clear anti-Russian bias.

My intention was not to defend Russia but simply to give evidence on the complexity of events in Ukraine and the multiple actors involved. Personally I find this complexity extremely interesting.

Is there a specific point you want to get across? Your dramatic retelling of the events in Ukraine is entertaining and I encourage you to adapt it into a screenplay and sell it to Hollywood. Aside from that I'm not quite sure what your specific point is.

> "Putin fan" is not a term I would use to describe myself or anyone who is seriously analyzing the situation from a rational unbiased perspective.

You certainly wouldn't use it as you rightly perceive general hostility to Putin fans over here. I'm not sure what your propaganda fix is. Your casting me as an unsophisticated American, despite my blindingly obvious Russian reference username suggests you are a 2nd gen immigrant, so it's prolly RT. But it's certain you like to think that your opinion is not formed by propaganda in one bit, and you rather arrived to it independently (even if down to same exact talking points) at a bidding of your intellect.

I won't even bother you asking the shebboleth of "чей Крым", as I certainly know the kind of "it's complicated" Putin-fan-in-a-hostile-environment answer it would entail. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

The narrative you have invented for yourself to understand me with limited information is fascinating. You have a gift for storytelling!

You should really start writing fiction. Not kidding at all. I loved Rainbow Six. Actually Clancy in general. It's just fun stuff to read. Throwing in Cyrillic makes it exciting.

As for my propaganda fix, that's kind of unfair. I mean... What's your propaganda fix? Why are you so intent on labeling me? I'm a human with a brain like you dude... we're brothers on this planet. I read Wikipedia for the most part, read the Times, the Post. I monitor CNN and BBC, also Fox News from time to time. Lots of others less so, e.g. Vox, The Guardian, Slate, The Atlantic, Vice. I actually don't watch RT much at all outside of randomly linked YT clips, I'm not even totally sure what they air... You?

Back to the topic at hand, what exactly was your point w.r.t. to the Ukraine situation? Do you disagree that it's a complicated geopolitical issue with multiple stake-holding actors?

BTW Your conspiracy theory that I'm a low-key "Putin fan" reminds me of medieval witch hunting. Honestly, HN really isn't a hostile environment to be a "Putin fan," but you know what is? Ukraine! rim-shot

It's sad that, in these modern, presumably more civilized, times, one can't offer a more complex analysis of world events without being labeled a "Putin fan" or being accused of being brainwashed by Russian propaganda. What a time to be alive!

Let me renounce the devil for you and calm your paranoid anxieties. I am not a "Putin fan." Putin sux0rZ! Feel better? Can you not burn me at the stake now?

Yeah, he annexed it covertly, denied it was him, his loyal supporters denied it was him, and then when it turned out it was him, suddenly his loyal supporters justified with "lots of history and lots of US meddling."

That does make you a Russophile.

I don't believe I justified any of Russia's actions. It's a complicated situation and there are lots of questionable actors...

For example, there is credible speculation that the US funded anti-Russian neonazis in Ukraine http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-...

Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.

Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article.

> The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’”

> This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld.

So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.

It's undeniable that the euromaidan protests had a strong right-wing nationalist component. They were violent and essentially terrorized the country.

This essentially led the president of Ukraine to resign. That right-wing faction then controlled Ukraine's government, and is still very strong in Ukraine.

We immediately recognized that new government and provided them with aid. That is insane! In the west, their only saving grace was that they were anti-Russian.

The logic of Putin apologists never ceases to amaze me.

I remember when the situation in Ukraine/Crimea was just unfolding and I was discussing it with a friend. At first his position was "There is no proof Russia is in Ukraine, that is just Western propaganda. What do you think, Putin is trying to annex Ukraine? Come on, that's ridiculous" a few months later, Putin annexes Crimea. All of a sudden, his argument changes to "Well Crimea has a very interesting history, and plus, all the people living there really want to be part of Russia" you can't win with these people. They will keep changing their argument. If Putin annexes all of Ukraine tomorrow, you will see the same changes in their arguments with justifications for his terrible decisions.

Also, you can always bet on them saying something along the lines of "Well the US did X, so that totally validates Russia doing Y"

Ukraine is not an isolated event. It's yet another chess piece in a long and drawn out American/Russian chess game that's been played since WW2.

Yes, Russia is being bullish on Ukraine. This is happening after America has expanded NATO into multiple ex-Warsaw pact countries eastward of the Berlin Wall after an agreement was made for that not to happen. http://spiegel.de/international/world/a-663315.html

Given that there is evidence that America was also meddling in the future of Ukrainian government, it's not hard to see that Ukraine is an important geopolitical asset that both superpowers are willing to manipulate. It's not as simple as Putin annexing Ukraine for some evil world domination plan, it looks more defensive than offensive on their part in the grand scheme of things.

The fact that your friend was wrong does not make all geopolitical analyses that are more complex than Russia being the bad guy and America being the good guy incorrect. Any argument that the situation is morally clear cut is overly simplistic and harmful.

Which country joined NATO due to tanks rolling through it?

It's intellectually dishonest to act like a country choosing to join an alliance is the same as a country being invaded and annexed. If that region wanted to become part of Russia, why did tanks have to do it? If it's defensible that Russia rolled tanks through a sovereign state, why did Russia deny it was them?

NATO arguably going against its word does not warrant a clear cut violation of state sovereignty.

Both countries have been meddling in other countries for decades but the key difference is that Russia annexed a part of another country, the US has not. That is a very important difference you need to appreciate.

I never said I didn't appreciate it but context also matters. Tactics matter, I agree, but so do intentions. Russia has more to lose than America has to gain. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russian then borders NATO. Ukraine is essentially their queen on the European front. There would be no Ukraine crisis if we hadn't courted ex-Warsaw pact countries into NATO in the first place. You need to appreciate that, unless you think Russia should be destroyed. I'm an advocate for peace and balance so we would subjectively disagree at that juncture.

There is a reason we gave Poland to Russia after WW2. Buffer countries ease tensions between superpowers.

Of course context matters, and I fully understand that no country here is innocent, but it is important to gauge the severity of one action over another. In this case, the US is making allies with Russia's neighbors, and Russia is annexing another country. Do you agree that Russia's actions are much more severe than the US's? One could also argue that Russia's actions in this instance has sped up the exact thing they do not want (more countries joining NATO). What was the ideal outcome for Putin in Crimea? Ruin relationships with Ukraine and the US while scaring many bordering neighbors into joining NATO and/or building up their military? For what?

As for wanting Russia destroyed, why would I wish that on my home country? I love Russia and its culture and ~5 years ago I was excited to finally see the relations between Russia and the US finally maturing and opening up to one another. Putin's terrible decision in Crimea (among others) has ruined any chance of that happening anytime soon.

Yes Russia's actions were more severe, that much is true. I'm simply putting it into context. Ukraine is of the utmost importance, so I can see severe circumstances culminating in severe actions. Again, these present circumstances were slowly aggravated by the US over the passed 20 years, that can't just be ignored. There are lots more chapters to this story that we haven't even discussed.

I don't see Russia offensively invading other countries right now, Ukraine seems more like a defensive move after lots of US-led political meddling in Ukraine specifically (this is NOT normal http://youtu.be/AmkvO_IwsZ0). When Russia initiates unprovoked military invasions on other countries (which some publications have speculated on) then I will gladly unilaterally condemn their foreign policy. Right now it all seems very gray.

How are you still denying that a covert military operation to seize land from another country is the very definition of an unprovoked military invasion.

Unless "provocation" to you includes "they started to like America?"

Ukraine was in total disarray due to a violent revolution to depose its democratically elected president. The Russian annexation, i.e. intervention, was arguably done to stabilize the situation on their part. A referendum was held after the fact. Not to mention that Crimea was previously a Russian subject not 60 years prior.

I don't see this as unprovoked in the same vein as the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

The Ukrainian conflict is ineffably more complicated than they "started to like America." This sort of thinking is not productive when trying to make sense of world events. There are lots of factors at play here, economic, cultural, historical, political, and so forth.

This has been my only thesis from my OP. If you disagree with me, you're saying the Ukraine situation is as simple as Putin being an evil invader. I think that is a flawed, incomplete, and unproductive analysis of the situation. If you are interpreting me as defending Russia you are totally missing the point.

> Lots of history there and lots of US meddling as well as Russia.

You're using a classic Soviet argument tactic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

You're not responding to the above poster on merit at all, you're deflecting.

No, you're not responding on the merits. Mentioning the fact that America is involved with a faction in Ukraine and Russia is involved with a different faction in Ukraine when discussing Ukraine is not "whataboutism." Mentioning the fact that America is involved in any situation in the world ("how can they judge us on this when they do that?") that wasn't the exact situation under question could be "whataboutism."

The OP didn't even express any disapproval of what Russia did in Ukraine, so how could it be "whataboutism?"

Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic.

> Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic.

This.

> Because there's evidence.

Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence are you talking about exactly? Could you point me to a source?

As for your other points, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Your points have nothing to do with each other, so if you're just trying to portrait Russia and/or Putin as the "source of all evil", then I've got some bad news: One could easily turn your points on the head and do the same with the United States.

Examples:

> Putin purposely bombing US aligned rebels in Syria

The fact they're US-aligned doesn't make them good. Newsflash: The US have been supporting extremists in the Middle East for decades, as long as it fits their bill. Besides, in terms of international laws, the West is the party that is illegally engaging in Syria, not Russia.

> Putin powering the eastern conflict in Ukraine

The same thing could be said about the West, if you look at engagement in the Ukraine, financial support for various groups there, one-sided media reports that are closer to propaganda than anything else…

And don't even get me started about US engagement in the Middle East and powering conflicts there.

Besides, I'm always thinking about what the United States would do if there was a conflict / civil war in front of their borders… clearly they would engage.

Conclusion: I'm not trying to defend Russia at all or justify its actions, I just find it funny that we in the Western World tend to only look at what bad things other countries do when we're probably not any better.

I fully agree with the sentiment of saynsedit's post farther down:

> Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.

> Maybe I'm not up to date but what kind of evidence exactly? Could you give a source?

Wired: "According to a number of top cybersecurity researchers, they're probably right." (https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/) Wired cites the following firms: Crowdstrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant... and a professor named Thomas Rid. Apparently Crowdstrike is the firm hired by the DNC specifically (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...) but there's more than one organization mentioned.

New York Times: "American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee, according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-con...)

Reuters: "U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret." (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-hac...)

The Daily Beast: "The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a singly, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/dnc-hacker-...)

If you want notes from the cybersecurity organizations, why not head to both Crowdstrike's blog on the subject (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...) or ThreatConnect's blog (https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-n...) or a link to Fidelis Cybersecurity's blog (http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/08/fancy-bear-has-an-it-itch-...)?

This honestly doesn't seem like weaksauce evidence at first glance. Of course since this is politics / national relations, "you never know". But what I don't see yet via a Google search is a post in a cybersecurity research organization's blog saying Russia didn't hack the DNC.

If you come across that, let me know. At present, the argument some are making -- that the evidence that Russia didn't hack the DNC -- seems weak to me. There's just no evidence I am encountering that Russia wasn't involved.

> Apparently attributing anything unattributable to Russia is having a massive comeback right now.

Could that be because the US and Russia are currently engaged in a low level proxy conflict in Syria? The "Great Game" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game) of exerting economic and political influence continues...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com