Paranoid and with a complete misunderstanding of the West. Sounds like the Kremlin in the early '80s. Not a good time to revist to put it mildly.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-kremlin-really-believes-that-hillary-clinton-will-start-a-war-with-russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/
Quote
The Kremlin Really Believes That Hillary Wants to Start a War With Russia
An American embedded within Moscow's top foreign-policy brain trust explains why Putin and his cadres are backing Trump.
By Clinton Ehrlich
September 7, 2016
f Hillary Clinton is elected president, the world will remember Aug. 25 as the day she began the Second Cold War.
In a speech last month nominally about Donald Trump, Clinton called Russian President Vladimir Putin the godfather of right-wing, extreme nationalism. To Kremlin-watchers, those were not random epithets. Two years earlier, in the most famous address of his career, Putin accused the West of backing an armed seizure of power in Ukraine by "extremists, nationalists, and right-wingers." Clinton had not merely insulted Russia's president: She had done so in his own words.
Worse, they were words originally directed at neo-Nazis. In Moscow, this was seen as a reprise of Clinton's comments comparing Putin to Hitler. It injected an element of personal animus into an already strained relationship — but, more importantly, it set up Putin as the representative of an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to the United States.
Even as relations between Russia and the West have sunk to new lows in the wake of 2014's revolution in Ukraine, the Kremlin has long contended that a Cold War II is impossible. That's because, while there may be differences over, say, the fate of Donetsk, there is no longer a fundamental ideological struggle dividing East and West. To Russian ears, Clinton seemed determined in her speech to provide this missing ingredient for bipolar enmity, painting Moscow as the vanguard for racism, intolerance, and misogyny around the globe.
The nation Clinton described was unrecognizable to its citizens. Anti-woman? Putin's government provides working mothers with three years of subsidized family leave. Intolerant? The president personally attended the opening of Moscow's great mosque. Racist? Putin often touts Russia's ethnic diversity. To Russians, it appeared that Clinton was straining to fabricate a rationale for hostilities.
I have been hard-pressed to offer a more comforting explanation for Clinton's behavior — a task that has fallen to me as the sole Western researcher at the Russian Foreign Ministry's Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Better known by its native acronym, MGIMO, the institute is the crown jewel of Russia's national-security brain trust, which Henry Kissinger dubbed the "Harvard of Russia."
In practice, the institute is more like a hybrid of West Point and Georgetown's School of Foreign Service: MGIMO prepares the elite of Russia's diplomatic corps and houses the country's most influential think tanks. There is no better vantage point to gauge Moscow's perceptions of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.
Let's not mince words: Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat. The Russian foreign-policy experts I consulted did not harbor even grudging respect for Clinton. The most damaging chapter of her tenure was the NATO intervention in Libya, which Russia could have prevented with its veto in the U.N. Security Council. Moscow allowed the mission to go forward only because Clinton had promised that a no-fly zone would not be used as cover for regime change.
Russia's leaders were understandably furious when, not only was former Libyan President Muammar al-Qaddafi ousted, but a cellphone recording of his last moments showed U.S.-backed rebels sodomizing him with a bayonet. They were even more enraged by Clinton's videotaped response to the same news: "We came, we saw, he died," the secretary of state quipped before bursting into laughter, cementing her reputation in Moscow as a duplicitous warmonger.
As a candidate, Clinton has given Moscow déjà vu by once again demanding a humanitarian no-fly zone in the Middle East — this time in Syria. Russian analysts universally believe that this is another pretext for regime change. Putin is determined to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from meeting the same fate as Qaddafi — which is why he has deployed Russia's air force, navy, and special operations forces to eliminate the anti-Assad insurgents, many of whom have received U.S. training and equipment.
Given the ongoing Russian operations, a "no-fly zone" is a polite euphemism for shooting down Russia's planes unless it agrees to ground them. Clinton is aware of this fact. When asked in a debate whether she would shoot down Russian planes, she responded, "I do not think it would come to that." In other words, if she backs Putin into a corner, she is confident he will flinch before the United States starts a shooting war with Russia.
That is a dubious assumption; the stakes are much higher for Moscow than they are for the White House. Syria has long been Russia's strongest ally in the Middle East, hosting its only military installation outside the former Soviet Union. As relations with Turkey fray, the naval garrison at Tartus is of more strategic value than ever, because it enables Russia's Black Sea Fleet to operate in the Mediterranean without transiting the Turkish Straits.
Two weeks ago, Putin redoubled his commitment to Syria by conducting airstrikes with strategic bombers from a base in northwest Iran — a privilege for which Russia paid significant diplomatic capital. Having come this far, there is no conceivable scenario in which Moscow rolls over and allows anti-Assad forces to take Damascus — which it views as Washington's ultimate goal, based in part on publicly accessible intelligence reports.
Clinton has justified her threatened attack on Russia's air force, saying that it "gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia." This sounds suspiciously like the "madman theory" of deterrence subscribed to by former President Richard Nixon, who tried to maximize his leverage by convincing the Soviets he was crazy enough to start a world war. Nixon's bluff was a failure; even when he invaded Cambodia, Moscow never questioned his sanity. Today, Russian analysts do not retain the same confidence in Hillary Clinton's soundness of mind.
Her temper became legendary in Moscow when she breached diplomatic protocol by storming out of a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just moments after exchanging pleasantries. And the perception that she is unstable was exacerbated by reports that Clinton drank heavily while acting as America's top diplomat — accusations that carry special weight in a country that faults alcoholism for many of Boris Yeltsin's failures.
Cultural differences in decorum have made the situation worse. In Russia, where it is considered a sign of mental illness to so much as smile at a stranger on the street, leaders are expected to project an image of stern calm. Through that prism, Clinton has shown what looks like disturbing behavior on the campaign trail: barking like a dog, bobbing her head, and making exaggerated faces. (To be clear, my point is not that these are real signs of cognitive decay, but that many perceive them that way in Moscow.)
Another factor that disturbs Russian analysts is the fact that, unlike prior hawks such as John McCain, Clinton is a Democrat. This has allowed her to mute the West's normal anti-interventionist voices, even as Iraq-war architect Robert Kagan boasts that Clinton will pursue a neocon foreign policy by another name. Currently, the only voice for rapprochement with Russia is Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump. If she vanquishes him, she will have a free hand to take the aggressive action against Russia that Republican hawks have traditionally favored.
Moscow prefers Trump not because it sees him as easily manipulated, but because his "America First" agenda coincides with its view of international relations. Russia seeks a return to classical international law, in which states negotiate with one another based on mutually understood self-interests untainted by ideology. To Moscow, only the predictability of realpolitik can provide the coherence and stability necessary for a durable peace.
For example, the situation on the ground demonstrates that Crimea has, in fact, become part of Russia. Offering to officially recognize that fact is the most powerful bargaining chip the next president can play in future negotiations with Russia. Yet Clinton has castigated Trump for so much as putting the option on the table. For ideological reasons, she prefers to pretend that Crimea will someday be returned to Ukraine — even as Moscow builds a $4 billion bridge connecting the peninsula to the Russian mainland.
Moscow believes that Crimea and other major points of bipolar tension will evaporate if America simply elects a leader who will pursue the nation's best interest, from supporting Assad against the Islamic State to shrinking NATO by ejecting free riders. Russia respects Trump for taking these realist positions on his own initiative, even though they were not politically expedient.
In Clinton, it sees the polar opposite — a progressive ideologue who will stubbornly adhere to moral postures regardless of their consequences. Clinton also has financial ties to George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations are considered the foremost threat to Russia's internal stability, based on their alleged involvement in Eastern Europe's prior "Color Revolutions."
Russia's security apparatus is certain that Soros aspires to overthrow Putin's government using the same methods that felled President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine: covertly orchestrated mass protests concealing armed provocateurs. The Kremlin's only question is whether Clinton is reckless enough to back those plans.
Putin condemned the United States for flirting with such an operation in 2011, when then-Secretary Clinton spoke out in favor of mass protests against his party's victory in parliamentary elections. Her recent explosive rhetoric has given him no reason to believe that she has abandoned the dream of a Maidan on Red Square.
That fear was heightened when Clinton surrogate Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, recently accused Putin of attempting to rig the U.S. election through cyberattacks. That is a grave allegation — the very kind of thing a President Clinton might repeat to justify war with Russia.
That appears somewhat internally consistent.
QuoteLet's not mince words: Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat.
Shame for them the feeling isn't mutual. Oh sure, Russia's an existential threat--to its neighbors. It's really nothing more than an organized crime syndicate with its own letterhead.
Wait, Clinton was barking like a dog at one of he speeches?
The actual video:
https://youtu.be/58rLBBpCE2M
The campaign cut-up: :lol:
https://youtu.be/3zIHRI8-C14
What the fuck is wrong with you people. You're the leaders of the free world and these are the two options you've come up with to lead you.
Ok, the second video was pretty funny :D
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
i think they have plenty of other evidence that trump shouldn't be president :D. I mean if even BB doesn't think you should vote conservative there's something wrong with your candidate.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2016, 12:24:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
i think they have plenty of other evidence that trump shouldn't be president :D. I mean if even BB doesn't think you should vote conservative there's something wrong with your candidate.
Nah, not really. I have always found BB's politics abhorrent (he is very nice as a person, though) so I think it's a good rule of thumb to always vote opposite to what BB thinks. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
Donald's been able to prove that himself just fine on his own; he certainly doesn't need Putin's help.
After all, this is the guy that fired Gene Simmons in, like, Week 3 of
The Apprentice. Gene Fucking Simmons. The kind of Gene Simmons that can carry an entire season on his back. Fired.
Gene Simmons sucks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2016, 12:33:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
Donald's been able to prove that himself just fine on his own; he certainly doesn't need Putin's help.
:yes:
Quotethe naval garrison at Tartus is of more strategic value than ever, because it enables Russia's Black Sea Fleet to operate in the Mediterranean without transiting the Turkish Straits.
I kind of understand what they're saying but not fully. Surely it doesn't quite grant them this capability?
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
Anyway, we never have to worry about that.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/trump-clinton-foreign-policy-forum-key-quotes
QuoteTrump: I think when he [Putin] calls me brilliant, I'll take the compliment, OK?
If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him. I've already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn't that a terrible thing – the man has very strong control over a country. Now, it's a very different system, and I don't happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.
this really helps dispel the theories about a russia-trump connection because it explains why russia is so supporting of trump. they simply feel they'd have a better relationship with a trump presidency.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2016, 08:10:08 AM
this really helps dispel the theories about a russia-trump connection because it explains why russia is so supporting of trump. they simply feel they'd have a better relationship with a trump presidency.
Nah. I don't think knowledgeable people believe for a second the claim that the Russian leadership thinks a Clinton administration would pose an existential threat to Russia.
Russia supports trump because they know that Trump and Putin are similar leaders, and that Trump will not resist Russian expansion at the expense of Ukraine and even NATO members. Neither Putin nor Trump are in favor of the international status quo, and both would like to see Russia supplant the USA as the primary power broker in the Middle East and Europe.
The faux outrage against Clinton is designed to hide this convergence of interests, because the Russian leadership knows that few American voters would vote for Trump if they understood the implications of his isolationist foreign policy proposals.
The Russians need to be careful, though; if one can learn anything from Trump's business history, it is that he makes his money at the expense of his "allies," not his enemies.
it is certainly possible the sources intentionally fabricated the story, but I've no idea on how probable that is here
The story is laugh out loud level BS.
BTW do a google search on "Clinton Ehrlich" - apart from this piece he has no online existence.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
BTW do a google search on "Clinton Ehrlich" - apart from this piece he has no online existence.
Interesting.
the plot thickens :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
The story is laugh out loud level BS.
BTW do a google search on "Clinton Ehrlich" - apart from this piece he has no online existence.
Didn't catch that. Ehrlich means "honest" in German. Presumably it's a pseudonym, though picking one that means "Clinton Honest" seems a bit too on the nose.
Hold your horses, the guy seems to have a Facebook profile that's been online for a few years at least: https://www.facebook.com/clinton.ehrlichquinn?ref=br_rs
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2016, 11:06:17 AM
Hold your horses, the guy seems to have a Facebook profile that's been online for a few years at least: https://www.facebook.com/clinton.ehrlichquinn?ref=br_rs
Look who's back! :)
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2016, 11:06:17 AM
Hold your horses, the guy seems to have a Facebook profile that's been online for a few years at least: https://www.facebook.com/clinton.ehrlichquinn?ref=br_rs
Good to see you back, Syt! :cheers:
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2016, 11:06:17 AM
Hold your horses, the guy seems to have a Facebook profile that's been online for a few years at least: https://www.facebook.com/clinton.ehrlichquinn?ref=br_rs
Though that doesn't exactly say much about why he'd be a credible source/author.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2016, 12:19:51 AM
What the fuck is wrong with you people. You're the leaders of the free world and these are the two options you've come up with to lead you.
No shit. We seriously need a do-over on both primaries.
Right I'm not suggesting that he doesn't exist at all. Just questioning his credibility and bona fides. The FB page- which shows a picture of a young looking student and contains no other information other than he just started studying in Russia as a visiting researcher - tends to confirm those concerns.
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2016, 11:06:17 AM
Hold your horses, the guy seems to have a Facebook profile that's been online for a few years at least: https://www.facebook.com/clinton.ehrlichquinn?ref=br_rs
Yeah, I've seen this page not found guy before.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2016, 11:06:17 AM
Hold your horses, the guy seems to have a Facebook profile that's been online for a few years at least: https://www.facebook.com/clinton.ehrlichquinn?ref=br_rs
Yeah, I've seen this page not found guy before.
If you have facebook, then you can access that link. :)
Syt :w00t:
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2016, 12:24:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
i think they have plenty of other evidence that trump shouldn't be president :D. I mean if even BB doesn't think you should vote conservative there's something wrong with your candidate.
I don't think either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton are fit to be President; I just think Hilary is less unfit.
And too bad she isn't actually an existential threat to Russia. I wouldn't at all be unhappy if we had a President who truly was an existential threat to Russia as we know it.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2016, 03:38:01 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2016, 12:24:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2016, 12:22:27 AM
I don't think the US citizens should pay any attention to what Russia says but I just want to say that if the Kremlin (or China or some other country like that) said the same about Trump, all the Clintonistas here would be claiming that it's a proof Trump is unfit to be the POTUS.
i think they have plenty of other evidence that trump shouldn't be president :D. I mean if even BB doesn't think you should vote conservative there's something wrong with your candidate.
I don't think either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton are fit to be President; I just think Hilary is less unfit.
I can completely understand not wanting Hillary to be president, but unfit? :huh: What credentials is she lacking?
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 03:43:00 PM
I can completely understand not wanting Hillary to be president, but unfit? :huh: What credentials is she lacking?
You know exactly what she's lacking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2016, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 03:43:00 PM
I can completely understand not wanting Hillary to be president, but unfit? :huh: What credentials is she lacking?
You know exactly what she's lacking.
Hey now, he might have eventually coerced a young woman (in some sort of bizarro Richard Gere-Julia Roberts runaway bride situation) into a relationship but I doubt he needs his president to have a dick.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
The story is laugh out loud level BS.
BTW do a google search on "Clinton Ehrlich" - apart from this piece he has no online existence.
Seems I gave FP too much credit! :o
I thought they were quite credible.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 04:02:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2016, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 03:43:00 PM
I can completely understand not wanting Hillary to be president, but unfit? :huh: What credentials is she lacking?
You know exactly what she's lacking.
Hey now, he might have eventually coerced a young woman (in some sort of bizarro Richard Gere-Julia Roberts runaway bride situation) into a relationship but I doubt he needs his president to have a dick.
Wait, what? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 04:02:56 PM
Hey now, he might have eventually coerced a young woman (in some sort of bizarro Richard Gere-Julia Roberts runaway bride situation) into a relationship but I doubt he needs his president to have a dick.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyum.
Claws are out on the kitty. I like, I like.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 08, 2016, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 04:02:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2016, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2016, 03:43:00 PM
I can completely understand not wanting Hillary to be president, but unfit? :huh: What credentials is she lacking?
You know exactly what she's lacking.
Hey now, he might have eventually coerced a young woman (in some sort of bizarro Richard Gere-Julia Roberts runaway bride situation) into a relationship but I doubt he needs his president to have a dick.
Wait, what? :huh:
If you do not completely and entirely accept Hillary as your Lady and Saviour, you are fair game for any type of personal attack.
Welcome to Languish. Are you new here?
The d-bag who thinks calling her a "cunt" is the epitome of political discourse is whining about personal attacks?
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2016, 01:11:58 AM
The d-bag who thinks calling her a "cunt" is the epitome of political discourse is whining about personal attacks?
Really? I would have thought that we apply a slightly different standard to how we talk to each other and how we talk about presidential candidates.
If not, I guess a lot of people here need to be banned for how they talk about Trump.
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2016, 01:16:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2016, 01:11:58 AM
The d-bag who thinks calling her a "cunt" is the epitome of political discourse is whining about personal attacks?
Really? I would have thought that we apply a slightly different standard to how we talk to each other and how we talk about presidential candidates.
If not, I guess a lot of people here need to be banned for how they talk about Trump.
Has anyone here PMed Trump and suggested that he commit suicide?
Quote from: dps on September 09, 2016, 04:16:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2016, 01:16:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2016, 01:11:58 AM
The d-bag who thinks calling her a "cunt" is the epitome of political discourse is whining about personal attacks?
Really? I would have thought that we apply a slightly different standard to how we talk to each other and how we talk about presidential candidates.
If not, I guess a lot of people here need to be banned for how they talk about Trump.
Has anyone here PMed Trump and suggested that he commit suicide?
No but only because it wouldn't be succesful with Trump.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2016, 12:19:51 AM
What the fuck is wrong with you people. You're the leaders of the free world and these are the two options you've come up with to lead you.
USA
An oldie but a goodie:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/119sB37KhnCv5K/giphy.gif)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2016, 11:42:55 AM
Right I'm not suggesting that he doesn't exist at all. Just questioning his credibility and bona fides. The FB page- which shows a picture of a young looking student and contains no other information other than he just started studying in Russia as a visiting researcher - tends to confirm those concerns.
Your suspicions are warranted.
QuoteForeign Policy is defending running an article on its website Wednesday that lays out what Moscow supposedly thinks of Hillary Clinton as being clearly an opinion piece, despite its numerous unsourced claims about Clinton's worldview and her health.
The article, written by an American living in Moscow named Clinton Ehrlich, argues that many within Russia's government see Clinton as unbalanced and dangerous, willing to start a new Cold War, and someone with a drinking problem. It repeats certain Kremlin talking points, including that the revolution in Ukraine was carried out by neo-Nazis, that George Soros seeks regime change in Russia, and that Clinton is "unstable." The article, titled "The Kremlin really believes Hillary Clinton will start a war with Russia," is Ehrlich's first piece for the magazine's website.
Ben Pauker, executive editor of Foreign Policy, defended the piece in an email to BuzzFeed News: "Clinton Ehrlich's piece is labeled as an 'argument' and we've gone to extra efforts to make clear that it's written by an American researcher working within Moscow's top state-run, foreign-policy think tank. As such, he has a unique perspective on how the Russian elite view Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Foreign Policy strives to offer a range of views, and I think our readers are smart enough to make their own judgments as to the validity of his argument."
US officials have grown increasingly concerned that Russia is attempting to destabilize the US election process, including through both direct methods, like their suspected involvement with the hackers who cracked the Democratic National Committee's emails that were subsequently leaked, and indirectly through spreading misinformation and propaganda.
Ehrlich, 26, spoke to BuzzFeed News by Skype and Facebook Messenger from Moscow to say he was not a tool of the Russian government. He said he was doing a year of study at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), a prestigious school that is the training ground for Russia's diplomatic corps and is under the foreign ministry's control. He claims to be the only Westerner there, and told BuzzFeed News he did not get permission from the foreign ministry to publish the story.
The story was picked up in Russia, including by state-run news agency RIA-Novosti.
Ehrlich described an unusual path, laced with descriptions of grandeur, that brought him to Moscow. The son of one of California's top lawyers, he dropped out of high school and did not go to college. Instead, he says, he landed an internship at the age of 16 at the Claremont Institute working on a project on missile defense.
"You could say I was one person away from the President of the United States," he said of his time at Claremont, as he briefed a person who would infrequently brief the president. It was after that he began learning Russian, he says, having become interested in the place and culture through the course of his work on missile defense. He also says that during the following years he shed the "neocon propaganda I'd been consuming and excreting."
Through the years he's been to Moscow several times, he says, but it's all been self-funded and more in the pursuit of the women he'd come in contact with while attempting to practice his Russian. "I have multiple exes who are Russian and I came to Moscow in March [2015] to visit a girl. A lot of what you see on my Facebook is related to my search for a soulmate, not anything policy related," he said by Facebook Messenger.
Ehrlich also lists himself as the founder of several companies on LinkedIn, including the Willpower Supplements Corporation, which claims to be a distributor of the "world's first willpower pill." (Ehrlich noted that the product was sold out and "due to regulatory issues" likely would never be back in stock.)
Working under his father, he says, he had a key role in a much publicized case of an Iraq war veteran who was wrongfully convicted of murder being freed. That case, Ehrlich says, is what most likely tipped the scales for his admission to MGIMO. He'd applied to the institute last June, he said, and has paid his own way for his one-year at the school and for his own room and board.
When it comes to the US election, he supports Donald Trump, appearing in a "Make America Great Again" hat on his Facebook page. "It started as ironic," he said on Facebook Messenger. "Then it became real, once he impressed me by supporting realist foreign-policy positions that I never imagined a candidate for President would actually have the intelligence or brass balls to back."
Ehrlich denies that he was prompted to write the piece by foreign ministry officials, listing several ways where he disagrees with the Russian government. "One argument in defense of Crimea is idea of self-determination, and I think both Moscow and Washington are hypocritical," he said, pointing to Russia's brutal quelling of Chechen independence and the US refusing to let the South secede during the Civil War.
So why, then, did he feel the need to write his article about Clinton?
Ehrlich's original pitch had nothing to do with Clinton — he sent an unsolicited email late last month, suggesting an anodyne article on why deterrence principles that worked during the Cold War wouldn't make sense for cyberwarfare. Tucked into that pitch was the idea that Moscow elites see an existential threat in the outcome of the US election. That small aside would develop into the article published on the website this week.
"I felt a moral obligation to point out that a presidential candidate was calling Putin a Neo-Nazi," Ehrlich said, referring to Clinton's speech on the so-called alt-right, where she called Putin the "godfather" of Trump's style of extreme nationalism. "I don't think it seems right to antagonize the country that has more influence than any other nation-state in the world."
"I think part of the problem is this idea of propaganda," he said. "If I were Russian and I was taking positions that lined up with official positions of the US that would be propaganda in Russia. If I express my sincere convictions and that lines up with things Moscow believes, I'm a propagandist."
"I'm not hiding the fact that I like Russia," he said. "I feel like my views about international relations are something I can say here, because I agree with a lot of what the foreign ministry has to say and I value the culture and the people. What is this exterior motive I'm accused of having?"
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/magazine-defends-pro-kremlin-piece?utm_term=.hlJNopn8N#.vqMxmgK4x
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2016, 05:19:24 AM
Quote from: dps on September 09, 2016, 04:16:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2016, 01:16:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2016, 01:11:58 AM
The d-bag who thinks calling her a "cunt" is the epitome of political discourse is whining about personal attacks?
Really? I would have thought that we apply a slightly different standard to how we talk to each other and how we talk about presidential candidates.
If not, I guess a lot of people here need to be banned for how they talk about Trump.
Has anyone here PMed Trump and suggested that he commit suicide?
No but only because it wouldn't be succesful with Trump.
:hmm: So you PMed Raz that because you thought that might be successful?
Quote
Ehrlich also lists himself as the founder of several companies on LinkedIn, including the Willpower Supplements Corporation, which claims to be a distributor of the "world's first willpower pill." (Ehrlich noted that the product was sold out and "due to regulatory issues" likely would never be back in stock.)
No further comment required
It sounds like he and Russia were made for each other.
I am starting to get convinced that Russia IS spending effort to help Trump get elected.
There is a popular, very liberal-minded online blog/magazine in Hungary which I frequent.
Due to the leanings of the portal, there have been two types of commenters in their comment sections: liberals/leftists, and contrarian Russia-fans. Almost (if not) all of the latter are merely useful idiots I think.
But, they do echo the exact same views about most things, taken from the half a dozen or so Hungarian online news outlets either openly, or privately funded from Russia.
The latest trend I have discovered is their vehement support for Trump. They have an arsenal of breitbart and even more obscure online links to throw at every news and discussion concerning the Presidential candidates. They clearly could not have such intimate knowledge of the US political fringes, they must be getting their sources from somewhere closer to them.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2016, 02:46:50 AM
It sounds like he and Russia were made for each other.
Natural Trump supporter as well.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2016, 04:24:30 AM
I am starting to get convinced that Russia IS spending effort to help Trump get elected.
It's possible, but funding pro-Russian commentary on Hungarian news blogs is not the most effective method of influencing a US election.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2016, 09:46:19 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2016, 04:24:30 AM
I am starting to get convinced that Russia IS spending effort to help Trump get elected.
It's possible, but funding pro-Russian commentary on Hungarian news blogs is not the most effective method of influencing a US election.
What I mean is that I am pretty sure those sites take their news from other Russian sources.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2016, 09:46:19 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2016, 04:24:30 AM
I am starting to get convinced that Russia IS spending effort to help Trump get elected.
It's possible, but funding pro-Russian commentary on Hungarian news blogs is not the most effective method of influencing a US election.
We're not the only western country that has elections. The kremlinbots are aiding far right piece of garbage in pretty much every country of note, most likely in a semi-centralized way. The talking points are probably the same, adjusted for local conditions.