Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[DGuller]

Here is something I don't get: some of the people we suspect of being Russian assets surely are Russian assets.  Why is US government not doing anything about that?  If US intelligence about Russia has proven to be so impeccable recently, then surely they should also have the goods on some of the assets.  Why are they allowed to operate unhindered?

[viper37]

Here is something I don't get: some of the people we suspect of being Russian assets surely are Russian assets.  Why is US government not doing anything about that?  If US intelligence about Russia has proven to be so impeccable recently, then surely they should also have the goods on some of the assets.  Why are they allowed to operate unhindered?

It's not illegal for most of these people to be Russia's asset.

Failure to disclose the revenue would be a tax fraud, but that's up to the IRS, I guess.

For journalists or medias that let these people speak if they know them to be lobbyist for Russia, it's a question of ethics.  Like, say, Tucker Carlson, if he's bought by the Russians.  He's not doing anything illegal.  It might be against Fox News ethics rules, if they had any, but he's not doing anything illegal by accepting Russian money or gifts.

A politician, I guess it depends.  I suppose US have rules about their politicians receiving gifts from foreign country or citizens.  It might be a breach of Congress' ethics, but may not be illegal. 

Then again, if the contributions are made by US corporations or citizens to campaign funds, it might not be illegal, even if the money ultimately came from the Russian government.  I am totally unsure about the duties of the politicians to investigate the real origin of the contributions they receive.

There may also be a legal void about what a foreign country could indrectly contribute or do to promote the election of a particular candidate.  Direct intervention is certainly illegal, but maybe creating some kind of super PAC to make a negative campaign about one's opponent is not illegal.

For university teachers, or any kind of political commentators, it really depends on where they say it.  A professor publishing a study would have to disclose his financial links.  The same professor speaking on television does not have to, and even if asked, lying to the network would not be a crime, but possibly a simple breach of contract, I guess.

[viper37]

We literally just went through this, with people stating that this was all a bluff by Putin, because actually invading would just be, well, stupid and does not make any sense.

Actually, I think that was just Gaiijin de Moscou.

[alfred russel]

Reading Twitter, I think it's a safe assumption that whoever uses the word "Nuland" today is a Russian asset.  Hopefully someone is keeping tabs.

I think social media sites have blundered with merely deleting Russian trolls they've been able to identify.  That's a counter-productive strategy.  They should've been branded and their posts left untouched so that everyone can see the talking points they were tasked with spreading.

One of the few good things to emerge from this disaster, aside from a greater degree of Western cooperation, has been that it has widely exposed and discredited Russian influencer assets. The Russian propaganda has been so naked and obvious.

Hopefully, this effect will be permanent.

Everything was obvious during the cold war and yet that didn't stop there being plenty of sympathizers in the west. Some of whom have gone on to have significant political futures (see Bernie Sanders, maybe Corbyn though
I know less on him).

[Sheilbh]

I cannot emphasise enough how much more extreme on this sort of thing Corbyn is than Bernie

They are not even comparable.

[viper37]

Mostly agree, but if the reason why he thought Ukraine would surrender quickly was the reason that he stated in his unhinged loon speech, then his main error was believing his own propaganda.  That's not a rational error.

depends on the intel he got.  If he got real intel on Ukrainians and their will to fight, russophone or not, it was irrational.

if the intel he got was what his agents thought what he wanted to read, then it was not so irrational.

Compare to GW Bush.  He certainly believed there was mass wmd production in Iraq.  And the intel he got pushed him in this direction.  Wether anyone else in his circle knew the reality is another matter.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You're talking from the perspective of a Western historian.

And you're talking from the perspective of a Western non-historian.

I'm actually roleplaying as an Imperial Jap in this scenario.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Here is something I don't get: some of the people we suspect of being Russian assets surely are Russian assets.  Why is US government not doing anything about that?  If US intelligence about Russia has proven to be so impeccable recently, then surely they should also have the goods on some of the assets.  Why are they allowed to operate unhindered?

It's not illegal for most of these people to be Russia's asset.

Failure to disclose the revenue would be a tax fraud, but that's up to the IRS, I guess.

For journalists or medias that let these people speak if they know them to be lobbyist for Russia, it's a question of ethics.  Like, say, Tucker Carlson, if he's bought by the Russians.  He's not doing anything illegal.  It might be against Fox News ethics rules, if they had any, but he's not doing anything illegal by accepting Russian money or gifts.

A politician, I guess it depends.  I suppose US have rules about their politicians receiving gifts from foreign country or citizens.  It might be a breach of Congress' ethics, but may not be illegal. 

Then again, if the contributions are made by US corporations or citizens to campaign funds, it might not be illegal, even if the money ultimately came from the Russian government.  I am totally unsure about the duties of the politicians to investigate the real origin of the contributions they receive.

There may also be a legal void about what a foreign country could indrectly contribute or do to promote the election of a particular candidate.  Direct intervention is certainly illegal, but maybe creating some kind of super PAC to make a negative campaign about one's opponent is not illegal.

For university teachers, or any kind of political commentators, it really depends on where they say it.  A professor publishing a study would have to disclose his financial links.  The same professor speaking on television does not have to, and even if asked, lying to the network would not be a crime, but possibly a simple breach of contract, I guess.

A Russian funded Super PAC would certainly not be legal. Taking money from Russia to advocate on behalf of Russia in the public sphere, would not strictly be illegal, but you could very easily cross into being an unregistered foreign lobbyist depending on the sort of activities you engaged in--which is what got Manafort in trouble.

[Jacob]

depends on the intel he got.  If he got real intel on Ukrainians and their will to fight, russophone or not, it was irrational.

if the intel he got was what his agents thought what he wanted to read, then it was not so irrational.

Compare to GW Bush.  He certainly believed there was mass wmd production in Iraq.  And the intel he got pushed him in this direction.  Wether anyone else in his circle knew the reality is another matter.

Agreed.

If you carefully weigh the intel you have and take calculated risks based on the situation as you understand it, you're not irrational.

If you build your organization such that your intel becomes of poor quality, you are bound to make poor decisions. That, however, is not a sign of irrationality IMO.

Which is why I think the issue re: Putin is not so much about how unhinged he is (though that may come into play at some point) but about the quality and slant of the intelligence he is acting on. And it really seems that over the decades, Putin has made it hard for himself to get a clear view around him.

Maybe it's splitting hairs... but if Putin apparent irrationality is due to systemic bias in some of the inputs into his decision-making, we may be able to predict his decision-making better if we understand the bias. Whereas if he's just unhinged, that's less likely.

[viper37]

I think from a Russian nationalist imperialist perspective it is impossible to admit that it is not. At a certain point it would be clear that Putin has let it get away if Putin did nothing.

You guys keep conflating terms
Ukraine seceding from the USSR, that's nationalism.
Russia refusing to recognize Ukraine as a distinct entity, that's imperialism.  That's God save the King/Queen, Rule Britannia! territory.
Nationalism is about packing and leaving the Empire.
Imperialism is refusing to accept someone may be different than you are and insisting everyone thinks the same.  British policy is "Make the world England," stuff is not nationalism.

[viper37]

A Russian funded Super PAC would certainly not be legal. Taking money from Russia to advocate on behalf of Russia in the public sphere, would not strictly be illegal, but you could very easily cross into being an unregistered foreign lobbyist depending on the sort of activities you engaged in--which is what got Manafort in trouble.

thanks for the clarification.

[grumbler]

Compare to GW Bush.  He certainly believed there was mass wmd production in Iraq.  And the intel he got pushed him in this direction.  Wether anyone else in his circle knew the reality is another matter.

As an aside, GWB believed that there was WMD production in Iraq because there was, indeed, WMD production (and use) in Iraq.  What he didn't realize (and SH had broken UN directives to hide) was that the WMD programs had been dismantled - though the weapons hadn't been declared or destroyed, as required.

I'm not sure how anyone could prove a negative, so I don't know how anyone now believes that the US and UK should have known that there was no ongoing WMD project.  There had been one in the past, SH refused to allow the UN inspectors to determine whether there still was one, and so the logical conclusion was that he was hiding the fact that he was still at it, not hiding the fact that he no longer was.

SH was a moron.  I've never understood why he was so determined not to allow UN inspectors to determine that he'd stopped his WMD program.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The rumor I always heard years later is Saddam basically wanted Iran to still believe he had some chemical weapons he could use just to discourage them making any incursions into Iraq, particularly since post-Gulf War I Iraq was so weakened militarily they would have trouble in a war with Iran. He essentially seemed to think that with many of the Europeans being opposed to it, the U.S. wouldn't actually go through with an invasion.

[grumbler]

If you carefully weigh the intel you have and take calculated risks based on the situation as you understand it, you're not irrational.

If you build your organization such that your intel becomes of poor quality, you are bound to make poor decisions. That, however, is not a sign of irrationality IMO.

Which is why I think the issue re: Putin is not so much about how unhinged he is (though that may come into play at some point) but about the quality and slant of the intelligence he is acting on. And it really seems that over the decades, Putin has made it hard for himself to get a clear view around him.

Maybe it's splitting hairs... but if Putin apparent irrationality is due to systemic bias in some of the inputs into his decision-making, we may be able to predict his decision-making better if we understand the bias. Whereas if he's just unhinged, that's less likely.

Putin has to know that a Jewish Nazi is an oxymoron.  The Azov regiment is a band of scumbags, but Putin has his own Chechen gang of scumbags, so the existence of a Ukrainian equivalent can't be what is setting him off, if he is rational.

So, yes, I agree that it is entirely possible that Putin is rational and just looks and sounds irrational. But that doesn't get us very far.

[Malthus]

It is effectively impossible to tell if Putin is rational or not, given that lying is a basic bedrock of his various strategies, and given that nuclear brinksmanship is the strongest arrow in his quiver.

It is in his best interests to be thought nuts. That way, his enemies fear he just may not be bluffing when he rants about dropping the bomb. Though just because it happens to be in his interests, doesn't mean he isn't in fact insane.