Russia: US-led coalition planes in Syria to be treated as targets

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52382124] Nah they just wanted to completely glass you over. Clearly your government is much worse because you lost some social services.

But I wouldn't fight for your nanny state either so I feel you there.[/QUOTE]

As bad as the Russians may be they don't want to nuke me, so fuck your war.

[Govna]

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52381886]The fact that you're so blatantly and openly calling for WW3 is worrying. Will you be saying the same when you're laying in a field in Ukraine with your legs blown off or bleeding to death in some Syrian desert? Because a draft is fucking unavoidable in a conventional war. You will be forced to fight, I will be forced to fight, all of us posting in this thread will be forced to fight. And for what? Absolutely nothing. But hey, humanity doesn't learn. WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars but look where that got us.[/QUOTE]

I think his point is that we've been building up to this point for years, and we can't afford to do nothing about them. The fact is the Russians are a threat to the entire West, and they're not going anywhere at this rate. Nor are there any signs that they're going to back down against us.

They meddled in our election here in the United States, and we've seen no retaliation; for that matter, Trump and his administration are still occupying the White House and have yet to be removed. Their diplomats have been mapping our electrical infrastructure, which is worrisome because of how vulnerable it is to cyberattacks and the fact that the Russians [i]really[/i] like hacking things. They invaded Georgia back in 2008 when they were prospecting for NATO membership, and in 2009 we responded with the "Russian reset" in diplomatic relations (which was a massive joke, especially now after everything else that's gone on). They threw a fit after their boy Yanukovych was ousted from the Ukraine, launched a shadow invasion of the Crimea and illegally annexed it under the guise of a bogus referendum that had no international oversight, started funding and directly supporting the rebels in the eastern part of the country... we responded with economic sanctions and a bit of posturing, but nothing major (we certainly haven't done enough for the Ukrainians and their country, which was gravitating towards the EU and NATO). They were supporting Le Pen in France, not to mention their support for various other far-right movements in Europe (if they can't use war to defeat other countries, they'll use political infiltration instead to install outright sympathizers and people who are indebted to them; Le Pen alone was seeking several million in loans from them for her campaign).

The problem with doing nothing against them is that it encourages them to continue. "Go ahead and do whatever you want. We're weak and passive, and we won't do anything to stop you." We can't afford to be limp-wristed about this shit. Appeasement-- and that's exactly what it is (by being so pitiful)-- [i]never[/i] works.

We don't have to resort to starting World War III, but we've got to start using some forceful measures against them and start asserting ourselves more than we are. I've been saying for a long time now that conventional warfare should be the last resort here. You don't need huge armies to cause a significant amount of damage to your enemies these days. Clandestine operations can be just as effective. We've got no shortage of alternatives we could use.

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=Govna;52382417]I think his point is that we've been building up to this point for years, and we can't afford to do nothing about them. The fact is the Russians are a threat to the entire West, and they're not going anywhere at this rate. Nor are there any signs that they're going to back down against us.

They meddled in our election here in the United States, and we've seen no retaliation; for that matter, Trump and his administration are still occupying the White House and have yet to be removed. Their diplomats have been mapping our electrical infrastructure, which is worrisome because of how vulnerable it is to cyberattacks and the fact that the Russians [i]really[/i] like hacking things. They invaded Georgia back in 2008 when they were prospecting for NATO membership, and in 2009 we responded with the "Russian reset" in diplomatic relations (which was a massive joke, especially now after everything else that's gone on). They threw a fit after their boy Yanukovych was ousted from the Ukraine, launched a shadow invasion of the Crimea and illegally annexed it under the guise of a bogus referendum that had no international oversight, started funding and directly supporting the rebels in the eastern part of the country... we responded with economic sanctions and a bit of posturing, but nothing major (we certainly haven't done enough for the Ukrainians and their country, which was gravitating towards the EU and NATO). They were supporting Le Pen in France, not to mention their support for various other far-right movements in Europe (if they can't use war to defeat other countries, they'll use political infiltration instead to install outright sympathizers and people who are indebted to them; Le Pen alone was seeking several million in loans from them for her campaign).

The problem with doing nothing against them is that it encourages them to continue. "Go ahead and do whatever you want. We're weak and passive, and we won't do anything to stop you." We can't afford to be limp-wristed about this shit. Appeasement-- and that's exactly what it is (by being so pitiful)-- [i]never[/i] works.

We don't have to resort to starting World War III, but we've got to start using some forceful measures against them and start asserting ourselves more than we are. I've been saying for a long time now that conventional warfare should be the last resort here. You don't need huge armies to cause a significant amount of damage to your enemies these days. Clandestine operations can be just as effective. We've got no shortage of alternatives we could use.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. War is an an abomination and typically almost any alternative is preferable, and diplomacy should always be tried early in the process. But diplomacy is not always going to work. Sometimes the civil methods just do not work. Eventually force is the only option available if you're trying to accomplish a goal. Russia has ultimately gotten out of hand and at a certain point something has to be done. If two nations like North and South Korea, or many others, who have constant border conflicts with their decades old mutual hatred can avoid return to open warfare, then a proxy conflict like Syria shouldn't be a catalyst for world war 3 or even just open conflict between the U.S. and Russia. Especially if it's not even real fighting but surgical strikes and the occasional dog fight. But it can certainly make Russia reconsider their efforts in the future, especially if we show a willingness to continually impede them.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Govna;52382417]They meddled in our election here in the United States[/quote]

no they haven't stop bullshitting. there's no evidence, no smoking gun. the DNC investigation was laughable.

the attack on the DNC came from Russia (not the Russian government), and there are plenty of attacks which don't come from the kremlin. this is something easy to understand once you know that Russia is a nation full of criminals and swindlers and the rule of law is weak

[quote]for that matter, Trump and his administration are still occupying the White House and have yet to be removed.[/quote]

it's been 7 months get over it

[quote]They invaded Georgia back in 2008 when they were prospecting for NATO membership.[/quote]

and why shouldn't they? the georgians were shelling russian positions in the caucasus and thought that the USA would back them up (they didn't). big mistake pal

[quote]We don't have to resort to starting World War III, but we've got to start using some forceful measures against them and start asserting ourselves more than we are. I've been saying for a long time now that conventional warfare should be the last resort here. You don't need huge armies to cause a significant amount of damage to your enemies these days. Clandestine operations can be just as effective. We've got no shortage of alternatives we could use.[/QUOTE]

the west already stuck a whole bunch of sanctions on russia and is busy supporting the right kind of rebels in the middle east (not the bad ones). what else do you propose? heavier sanctions? embargo? invading some shithole in the middle east?

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52382721]no they haven't stop bullshitting. there's no evidence, no smoking gun. the DNC investigation was laughable. [/QUOTE]

I'm inclined to trust the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/"]combined conclusion of the FBI, NSA, and CIA[/URL] over Russian apologists.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52382721]this is something easy to understand once you know that Russia is a nation full of criminals and swindlers and the rule of law is weak[/QUOTE]

Which makes it a great excuse for the Russian government to hide behind and provide plausible deniability, but when there are signs that the responsible party has access to considerable resources and has committed politically-motivated attacks before, it's obvious that it's just an excuse.

And it's not just computer hacking, it's media messaging and dissemination of fake news from Russian government-attributable sources, as the link above shows. The only people still claiming that Russia had no influence on the American election are either completely clueless or deliberately ignoring the preponderance of evidence.

[editline]20th June 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52382721]and why shouldn't they? the georgians were shelling russian positions in the caucasus and thought that the USA would back them up (they didn't). big mistake pal[/QUOTE]

What is this revisionist history bullshit? South Ossetian rebels started shelling Georgian forces in early August 2008 to bait a military response, and when Georgian forces responded in Tskhinvali, Russian troops invaded under the official claim of 'protecting ethnic Russians'. It's not even clear whether or not the invasion began [I]before[/I] the Georgian retaliation.

And even if the uniformed invasion began in response to the Georgian operation on Tskhinvali, the official EU report on the war concludes that Russian 'volunteers' were already operating within Georgia's borders before military operations officially began, so either way there were Russian combatants in Georgia before [I]anything[/I] had been done to provoke Russian 'intervention'. The Georgian military didn't even [I]know[/I] Russians were in the Caucasus region until they were already through the Roki Tunnel and heading for Tbilisi.

Russia invested a [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jun/17/russia-georgia-obama"]hell of a lot of resources[/URL] to spread the message that they didn't start the conflict, a prime example of how they coordinate media messaging with direct action to accomplish political goals.

It's the same strategy every time, be it Georgia or Ukraine or the US election- they apply offensive force under paper-thin plausible deniability, while simultaneously conducting a messaging campaign to undermine the opposition and spread disinformation to muddy the waters. That's why when you go to Russia Today right now, a [I]totally definitely not partisan[/I] news website, some of their top articles this evening are '[URL="https://www.rt.com/op-edge/393196-us-down-syrian-jet/"]US continues to ‘stab Russia in the back’ with Syrian offensives[/URL]', '[URL="https://www.rt.com/news/393278-us-treasury-russia-sanctions-ukraine/"]New US sanctions 'destructive,' hinder improvement of bilateral relations – Russian Foreign Ministry [/URL]', '[URL="https://www.rt.com/op-edge/393229-mental-blockade-us-embargoes-russia/"]Mental blockade: US embargoes 20 nations but frets over imaginary Russian siege[/URL]', and '[URL="https://www.rt.com/news/393220-raqqa-refugee-coalition-strikes/"]‘No safe place’: Man who fled Raqqa & lost kid blames US-led strikes for civilian deaths[/URL]'. Their involvement in global events which they deny responsibility for is obvious to the rest of the world, and it blows my mind that there are still people in the West falling for the propaganda machine.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=catbarf;52382939]I'm inclined to trust the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/"]combined conclusion of the FBI, NSA, and CIA[/URL] over Russian apologists.

Which makes it a great excuse for the Russian government to hide behind and provide plausible deniability, but when there are signs that the responsible party has access to considerable resources and has committed politically-motivated attacks before, it's obvious that it's just an excuse.

And it's not just computer hacking, it's media messaging and dissemination of fake news from Russian government-attributable sources, as the link above shows. The only people still claiming that Russia had no influence on the American election are either completely clueless or deliberately ignoring the preponderance of evidence.[/quote]

where is the evidence that "russian propaganda" affected any votes? what are you going to even realistically do? ban russia-today from operating in the US?

did the russians tell hillary not to campaign in wisconsin?

also yeah sure, trusting the NSA and CIA because they surely do have our best interests at heart. they haven't produced a SCRAP of [b]actual[/b] evidence and yet we're supposed to just believe them

[quote]What is this revisionist history bullshit? South Ossetian rebels started shelling Georgian forces in early August 2008 to bait a military response, and when Georgian forces responded in Tskhinvali, Russian troops invaded under the official claim of 'protecting ethnic Russians'. It's not even clear whether or not the invasion began [I]before[/I] the Georgian retaliation.

And even if the uniformed invasion began in response to the Georgian operation on Tskhinvali, the official EU report on the war concludes that Russian 'volunteers' were already operating within Georgia's borders before military operations officially began, so either way there were Russian combatants in Georgia before anything had been done to provoke Russian 'intervention'. The Georgian military didn't even know Russians were in the Caucasus region until they were already through the Roki Tunnel and heading for Tbilisi.[/QUOTE]

if the russians really invaded unprovoked, then why wasn't a bigger deal made of it by the americans

saakashvili barely appeared on western tv networks (i think because he embarrassed the west)

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52383189]also yeah sure, trusting the NSA and CIA because they surely do have our best interests at heart. they haven't produced a SCRAP of [b]actual[/b] evidence and yet we're supposed to just believe them[/QUOTE]

Did you leave out the FBI because it's not convenient to your simplistic 'NSA and CIA are really super bad guys so they blamed them for no reason' narrative? It's even better when the FBI stated with [i]higher confidence than the NSA[/i] that Russia intervened in the US election.

Also, there's pages upon pages of circumstantial-but-collectively-pretty-damning evidence in that document, but I guess if you refuse to read it because you've already decided Russia couldn't possibly do such a thing it might seem unconvincing. You probably think OJ Simpson was innocent, too.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52383189]if the russians really invaded unprovoked, then why wasn't a bigger deal made of it by the americans

saakashvili barely appeared on western tv networks (i think because he embarrassed the west)[/QUOTE]

Saakashvili is an embarrassment to his own people, but you have to be huffing butane to think that you can determine which side is culpable for the war by which one gets the most airtime on TV. And we [i]just went over[/i] how much money and influence Russia pumped into controlling public depiction of the conflict, so what's your point?

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=catbarf;52383908]Did you leave out the FBI because it's not convenient to your simplistic 'NSA and CIA are really super bad guys so they blamed them for no reason' narrative? It's even better when the FBI stated with [i]higher confidence than the NSA[/i] that Russia intervened in the US election.[/quote]

you failed to answer where exactly is the evidence that "russian propaganda" affected any votes? what are you going to even realistically do? ban russia-today from operating in the US? did the russians tell hillary to be really unelectable?

[quote]Also, there's pages upon pages of circumstantial-but-collectively-pretty-damning evidence in that document, but I guess if you refuse to read it because you've already decided Russia couldn't possibly do such a thing it might seem unconvincing. You probably think OJ Simpson was innocent, too.[/quote]

circumstantial evidence doesn't really count strongly in this argument the way you're going about it

the point is that there isn't a single piece of smoking gun evidence actually saying Russia did it. people were saying not that long ago that the Russians tried hacking the French elections (before the French said that they actually didn't) - what if this also turns out to be the case?

[editline]21st June 2017[/editline]

I just don't think going to war with Russia over a collection of circumstantial evidence is a wise move, especially when America has already wasted loads of lives in recent pointless wars that didn't serve it nor anybody else any benefit

[FuckOffEuroTrash]

[QUOTE=nulls;52382162]"muh scary russia want to kill everyone".

The red scare ended a while ago bud.[/QUOTE]
Different name, same group. Notice how their president is a former Soviet KGB member who has been rigging elections.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52382323]As bad as the Russians may be they don't want to nuke me, so fuck your war.[/QUOTE]

Notice how I said "wanted", as in past tense.

I'm not advocating war, I'm just pointing out how dumb it is that you claim your government is worse than one that literally kills reporters and political adversaries.

[editline]21st June 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52383189]
if the russians really invaded unprovoked, then why wasn't a bigger deal made of it by the americans

saakashvili barely appeared on western tv networks (i think because he embarrassed the west)[/QUOTE]

Do you really think that a country that invaded the Ukraine unprovoked could have possibly invaded Georgia unprovoked?

Are you also using US airtime as a gauge to who was justified in starting wars?

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52385257]Different name, same group. Notice how their president is a former Soviet KGB member who has been rigging elections.[/quote]

which ones?

[quote]Notice how I said "wanted", as in past tense.

I'm not advocating war, I'm just pointing out how dumb it is that you claim your government is worse than one that literally kills reporters and political adversaries.[/quote]

my point is that Russia isn't doing anything hostile to my country that warrants anything close to what idiots here are suggesting

my rulers are actively doing more damage to my country than the Russians ever were (or are)

[quote]Do you really think that a country that invaded the Ukraine unprovoked could have possibly invaded Georgia unprovoked?[/QUOTE]

well I am curious as to why people seem to think the conflict was entirely one sided with Georgia doing nothing wrong and Russia invading for laughs

[Antianan]

Don't really want in participate in that dickwaving contest, just wanted to point out how hilarious that omnipresent "their president is ex-kgb" sentiment is. If you read about Putin's time in KGB, you'll find out that he was basically just a mediocre desk warrior with his only foreign assignment being Eastern Germany right before the fall of the the Berlin Wall. He's not some KGB trained mastermind, he was just a middling office intelligence officer. I mean, there certainly are people that fit your image of ex-KGB agents that participate in ruling Russia, but it's definitely not Putin, and thinking that he alone orchestrates the whole thing is just hilariously dumb.

[FuckOffEuroTrash]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52385325]which ones? [/quote]
Exactly

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52385325]

my point is that Russia isn't doing anything hostile to my country that warrants anything close to what idiots here are suggesting

my rulers are actively doing more damage to my country than the Russians ever were (or are)[/quote]
Sure, but your government got rid of some social services and let in some hostile refugees, and other other want[b]ed[/b] to glass you over and has annexed quite a bit of land recently. As I also stated earlier, the Russian government murders its political rivals, kills contentious reporters, and stifles peaceful protest. I'd say the Russian government is far worse than yours.

Using that as a comparison or a thermometer is pretty dumb.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52385325]
well I am curious as to why people seem to think the conflict was entirely one sided with Georgia doing nothing wrong and Russia invading for laughs[/QUOTE]

It wasn't one sided, but it was completely and entirely instigated by Russia.

[editline]21st June 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=antianan;52385343]Don't really want in participate in all that dickwaving contest, just wanted to point out how hilarious that omnipresent "their president is ex-kgb" sentiment is. If you read about Putin's time in KGB, you'll find out that he was basically just a mediocre desk warrior with his only foreign assignment being Eastern Germany right before the fall of the the Berlin Wall. He's not some KGB trained mastermind, he was just a middling office intelligence officer. I mean, there are certainly people that fit your image of ex-KGB agents that participate in ruling Russia, but it's definitely not Putin, and thinking that he alone orchestrates the whole thing is just hilariously dumb.[/QUOTE]

Never did I claim that Putin is some military intelligence boogieman. But it's extremely concerning when you have anyone in the Russian government that had any involvement with the Soviet Union, especially the KGB. And considering the situation in Russia, what with the murders of any major dissidents, it's not a good situation. It's clearly the FSB thats performing those tasks so who do you think is calling on those favors?

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52385350]Exactly[/quote]

you can't say whenever or not Russia intervened in some elections? is that the casus belli for a potential war?

[quote]Sure, but your government got rid of some social services and let in some hostile refugees, and other other want[b]ed[/b] to glass you over and has annexed quite a bit of land recently. As I also stated earlier, the Russian government murders its political rivals, kills contentious reporters, and stifles peaceful protest. I'd say the Russian government is far worse than yours.[/quote]

the point is that the Russian government does not pose an active hostile threat to Britain (and it hasn't in decades). terrible politicians, brexit, the dismantling of the NHS, etc are bigger concerns to me and most british people than another fucking war which has nothing to do with us. Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially Syria? It's just going to end up with thousands of British people dead for no gain in safety for the nation

[quote]Never did I claim that Putin is some military intelligence boogieman. But it's extremely concerning when you have anyone in the Russian government that had any involvement with the Soviet Union, especially the KGB. And considering the situation in Russia, what with the murders of any major dissidents, it's not a good situation. It's clearly the FSB thats performing those tasks so who do you think is calling on those favors?[/QUOTE]

it's concerning when anyone in the Russian government had involvement with the Soviet Union? That's almost all of them?

russia isn't the cause of all the worlds problems, especially domestic ones in the USA such as their voting system (which wasn't hacked by the Russian government no matter how many times somebody asserts it without evidence)

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52384978]what are you going to even realistically do?[/QUOTE]

Sanctions? Embargoes? Political pressure? Seek UN remediation? At least fucking point the finger and stop acquiescing to this milquetoast presumption of uncertainty?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52385847]the point is that the Russian government does not pose an active hostile threat to Britain (and it hasn't in decades). terrible politicians, [B]brexit[/B][/QUOTE]

Ah yes, Brexit, the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/12/foreign-states-may-have-interfered-in-brexit-vote-report-says"]purely domestic decision[/URL] that [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-putin-is-meddling-in-britains-brexit-vote"]certainly was not influenced by Russia[/URL], showing that there is absolutely no reason to be concerned about a state that combines information campaigns, disinformation, and cyberattack to pursue their foreign policy goals. Good example.

Edit: Oh, and I also completely forgot to mention before that the Russian invasion of Georgia began concurrently with the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, so no, it is not surprising in the slightest that it didn't get the TV coverage it otherwise would have had. It was very fortunately coincidental for Russia that the war would start right at the same time as a Western-media-dominating event, and be resolved before the end of that event. Want to try claiming it was started by Georgians shelling Russians again?

[FuckOffEuroTrash]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52385847]you can't say whenever or not Russia intervened in some elections? is that the casus belli for a potential war?

the point is that the Russian government does not pose an active hostile threat to Britain (and it hasn't in decades). terrible politicians, brexit, the dismantling of the NHS, etc are bigger concerns to me and most british people than another fucking war which has nothing to do with us. Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially Syria? It's just going to end up with thousands of British people dead for no gain in safety for the nation

it's concerning when anyone in the Russian government had involvement with the Soviet Union? That's almost all of them?

russia isn't the cause of all the worlds problems, especially domestic ones in the USA such as their voting system (which wasn't hacked by the Russian government no matter how many times somebody asserts it without evidence)[/QUOTE]

What Catbarf said, and I'm still not advocating for war. Your barometer just sucks and thats all I'm pointing out.

[gudman]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52385350]And considering the situation in Russia, what with the murders of any major dissidents, it's not a good situation. It's clearly the FSB thats performing those tasks so who do you think is calling on those favors?[/QUOTE]

Most likely not Putin himself. Because if you dive into the stories of those killed under, let's say, suspicious circumstances, you'll find that most of them have no direct story with Putin himself. That's like, three or four people, counting a couple of his supposed (as in, nothing hard, but tons of circumstantial evidence) ex-associates in Petersburg's [i]bratva[/i]. The ones that produced the most resonance lead to the leader of Chechnya, Kadyrov, who sits in such a position that allows him to have way more power than he appears to have. At this point it's not clear who controls whom up there.
Not saying the situation isn't, well, fucking abysmal or that Putin is not a dictator, but Putin's direct personal influence and power seem kind of overblown, and what's important to the argument is that him having a past with KGB played very little role in how shit turned out.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=catbarf;52385907]Sanctions? Embargoes? Political pressure? Seek UN remediation? At least fucking point the finger and stop acquiescing to this milquetoast presumption of uncertainty?[/quote]

and then what? would the current level of evidence be enough? could america bring russia to "justice" without going to war? chances are they won't care about more sanctions (given how much they've shrugged those off so far) so it's hard to see how you can strongarm them

[quote]Ah yes, Brexit, the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/12/foreign-states-may-have-interfered-in-brexit-vote-report-says"]purely domestic decision[/URL] that [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-putin-is-meddling-in-britains-brexit-vote"]certainly was not influenced by Russia[/URL], showing that there is absolutely no reason to be concerned about a state that combines information campaigns, disinformation, and cyberattack to pursue their foreign policy goals. Good example.[/QUOTE]

or the more likely outcome is that the remain campaign in brexit (like hillarys in america) was shoddily run by politicians who barely looked as though they cared and made no effort to disguise their contempt while resting on the assumption that they would win easily

russia hacking the election (assuming they even did) isn't the reason that brexit happened or that trump got into power. these are just excuses used to avoid addressing the fact there is a deeper problem within that country (and Russia being in a position to easily manipulate common Americans through the media says a lot more about the integrity of the American people than it does about Russian wrongdoings)

[FuckOffEuroTrash]

[QUOTE=gudman;52386097]Most likely not Putin himself. Because if you dive into the stories of those killed under, let's say, suspicious circumstances, you'll find that most of them have no direct story with Putin himself. That's like, three or four people, counting a couple of his supposed (as in, nothing hard, but tons of circumstantial evidence) ex-associates in Petersburg's [i]bratva[/i]. The ones that produced the most resonance lead to the leader of Chechnya, Kadyrov, who sits in such a position that allows him to have way more power than he appears to have. At this point it's not clear who controls whom up there.
Not saying the situation isn't, well, fucking abysmal or that Putin is not a dictator, but Putin's direct personal influence and power seem kind of overblown, and what's important to the argument is that him having a past with KGB played very little role in how shit turned out.[/QUOTE]

I think its more Putin, or associates, protecting their current government rather than Putin himself.

Like you said its all circumstantial; we all [i]know [/i] its Putin and friends killing these people but we've got no hard evidence. Same sort of shit that the Mossad in Israel. We know its them but they've been in the business for a while and know how to cover their tracks.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52387001]and then what? would the current level of evidence be enough? could america bring russia to "justice" without going to war? chances are they won't care about more sanctions (given how much they've shrugged those off so far) so it's hard to see how you can strongarm them [/QUOTE]

Properly retaliating against Russia will be difficult or impossible. So what?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52387001]russia hacking the election (assuming they even did) isn't the reason that brexit happened or that trump got into power. [/QUOTE]

Russia wasn't solely responsible for everything bad that has happened. So what?

Nothing you're saying is a repudiation of the evidence. Talk about excuses, this is pure apologism: you've gone beyond trying to justify the claim that Russia is innocent, which could be justified on intellectual grounds, you're now trying to say it doesn't matter whether they're interfering in other countries' democratic processes or not because 'it'd be hard to punish them' and 'well the campaign wasn't great anyways' which are both [I]utterly irrelevant[/I] to the facts of the issue and the most spineless response to deliberate undermining of Western democracy.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=catbarf;52388026]Properly retaliating against Russia will be difficult or impossible. So what?[/quote]

the point is that easier "diplomatic" options and other policies like sanctions aren't going to work, and so in turn this means bringing out heavier ones (like going to war).

these accusations are serious enough that they can be used as a casus belli to justify a war that idiots have been clamouring for a long while.

[quote]Russia wasn't solely responsible for everything bad that has happened. So what?

Nothing you're saying is a repudiation of the evidence. Talk about excuses, this is pure apologism: you've gone beyond trying to justify the claim that Russia is innocent, which could be justified on intellectual grounds, you're now trying to say it doesn't matter whether they're interfering in other countries' democratic processes or not because 'it'd be hard to punish them' and 'well the campaign wasn't great anyways' which are both [I]utterly irrelevant[/I] to the facts of the issue and the most spineless response to deliberate undermining of Western democracy.[/QUOTE]

you ignored what i posted:

[quote]these are just excuses used to avoid addressing the fact[b] there is a deeper problem within that country[/b] (and Russia being in a position to easily manipulate common Americans through the media says a lot more about the integrity of the American people than it does about Russian wrongdoings)[/quote]

talking how about russia is severely undermining western democracy to the point that war is being considered as a response is deflecting from the real issue - that there are deep problems within American society. the failures in America are the bigger concern to be worried about, and yet instead of addressing them people want to go on more insane and idiotic overseas adventures and picking fights. it surely can't be a domestic problem that the electoral system is broken, and that people are being manipulated by propaganda (this was a thing before russia). no, it's all russias fault and they need to be brought to account for their crimes (real or imagined).

my point is that russia is not responsible for these problems, and even if they were, it is because they are exploiting opportunities to do which already exist. Putin can barely hold Russia itself together with an intricate web of bribery, corruption, alliances with regional strongmen, and criminal gangs. the last thing they can do is organise and run (competently) a systematic and global campaign to undermine the great powers of the western world