Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe, Security Officials Say | Hacker News Reader

Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe, Security Officials Say

nytimes.com

55 pointstysone19 comments

Russia has had a siege mentality for quite a while now. Napoleon, the Kizer, Hitler, these events each shaped the russian Psyche. This is why Russia misbehaves, they are paranoid of invasion. They want to keep the west weak and divided so as to limit the threat.

To improve the situation we must find a way to bring them in to the fold. The more we isolate Russia, the more we play in to this narrative where the only winners are the military industrial complex.

I think that there will be a lot of push back towards bringing Russia into the fold considering how much suffering their past actions have caused. Poland in particular will probably never be happy with it. (Are the Polish still mad about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?) This push-back could fracture the West by itself. We already saw some cracks appear due to Nord Stream, where Western Europe wanted the pipeline, but Eastern Europe didn't. Eastern Europe got overruled, so they sought help from the US. This showed cracks in the cooperation of Europe and the US.

Yeah, but Russia has pennies in comparison to the U.S. regarding the amount of money and resources to throw at these kinds of subversive offensives...

I doubt Russia could really pull this kind of thing off if they can't even manage to operate a single aircraft carrier from the 80's, led alone design anything new other than the S400 AA missile.

That's why they're fighting a hybrid warfare — a blend of propaganda, hacking attacks and disinformation — as well as open military confrontation. They don't have the resources for a conventional war like it was in Korea or Vietnam.

I think the Russian war on the west is far larger than even this article shows. I think Putin is treating this like a total war and directing massive resources of money and people to destabilize every country around the world he can. Russia had a major hand in supporting dictators in Venezuela and Syria, Putin has murdered indiscriminately around the globe without consequences. He purposely made public examples of some of the people murdered, but I am sure he has the ability to secretly murder people in make it look like heart attacks or something like that. I bet in 50 years we will discover Putin has had thousands of people killed overseas to go with the hundreds of thousands murdered in his own country. I work in PR and every day I see traces of the largest PR campaign I've ever seen. Just look in the comments of any newspaper and you will start to discover this.

The US has 800 military bases spread across the globe and is currently involved in many "destabilization" efforts (not to mention actual armed conflicts), all funded by billions and billions of dollars.

And the media is demonizing Russia. Talk about a PR campaign.

What "destabilization" efforts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

It is not a matter of whatabaoutism, it's a direct attempt to divert attention from wrongdoings, building a narrative that justifies imperialist actions by the USA.

The media has been very critical about U.S. policy regarding Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It's been very critical about both Obama's and Trump's decisions regarding Syria. It's been split, largely along partisan lines, about the Iran nuclear deal.

Yes, in far too many circumstances the media seemingly toes the line. But the U.S. media has manifestly shown significant independence. Independence isn't synonymous with being contrary or critical, and it certainly doesn't mean agreeing with your personal perspective. U.S. foreign policy isn't invented out of thin air; it emerges from the same political and cultural dynamics that shape the news and popular opinion, so it's entirely unsurprising that the popular media would agree more often than not.

Neoconservatives love this narrative, they have every intention of stoking a new Cold War after waning support for Middle East intervention (side-note: it's perplexing to see the New York Times bemoan Trump declaring an "end to endless wars").

This narrative? The Russians hacked the US election. They shot down a Dutch airline. They invaded and took Crimea. They poisoned a former spy in the UK. And that's just what I can list off the top of my head.

I'm not a neoconservative, and don't care for them, but it seems like for Russia, the Cold War never ended and the West has been sitting around saying 'We Won' for the last 30 years.

Wonderful rebuttal, but as for the “Cold War never ended for Russia”, it’s more complicated than that. The Russian state (which is semi indistinguishable from Putin at this point) seems to prioritize external safety, internal stability, and national pride.

In 2008, things weren't so bad- the US had fairly good cooperation with Russia in Central Asia, Bush and Putin had a good working relationship.

Then, for various reasons good and bad, the Obama/Clinton administration did a lot of things to upset Russia, threatening thier external safety (on-going NATO expansion for example), internal stability (democracy promotion), and national pride (for some reason, Obama and Hillary just never got along with Putin. Also various economic woes necessitated action here to stabilize the regime.). As a result Russia began lashing out in various ways. And, as it lashed out, it found success largely without consequence. For crying loud, it invaded and seized land for which the US and the UK (and Russia) had given formal security assurances for in exchange for the Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons, and nothing happened. The Russian state likes its prominent role in world affairs, and thinks that it is key to internal stability.

It's not really possible to put the genie back in the bottle now, but the relationship of the west and Russia didn't have to be this way, and it wasn't 11 years ago.

> for some reason, Obama and Hillary just never got along with Putin. Also various economic woes necessitated action here to stabilize the regime.

It's cause their advisors are neocons who seize every opportunity to fight other nations (see Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, Bill Kristol, etc.).

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/28/donald-tr...

But clearly the US has by pretty much any metric won. You're discounting the power of the US and over-estimating the threat of Russia, too - which is pretty much anyone scared about the "integrity of US elections". It's a viewpoint that's usually rooted in the idea that if someone like Trump could get elected it must be a consequence of sinister action.

Oh please. The Russiagate theory about the 2016 election has been completely debunked. The largest PR campaign has really been the gaslighting of the American public over the past 3 years by the Democratic Party to distract from their utter corruption and failure, and the Deep State to keep their Forever Wars rolling along.

Regarding your theory about Putin, even if it were true, it would be magnitudes less than the amount of people killed by the US and its allies in the bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, you are no doubt ignorant of the fact that the US spawned and supported ISIS, while Russia was instrumental in actually defeating them in Syria. This is common knowledge in military circles but studiously ignored by the Corporate Media.

ps. Bravo on your projection. Everything you're crediting to Putin and Russia are things the USG has actively been doing for the last 50 years. No need to bet, it's in the public record.

What kind of shit are you reading.

Also, quit it with the Whataboutism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

While I agree, the same can be said of the USA. Just different tactics and a different regime at home. Both of them plutocratic as well. Now there's a new similar player: China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com