In Praise of Putin

[Joe Hillshoist]

Cheers Jack.

That seems so far away now, years in the past, but it was mere months.

I can't imagine the nightmare it would have been if this pandemic had happened a year earlier, and we face the very real prospect of doing it again in six months if we don't get good rain over winter. Thankfully there isn't too much left to burn.

Actually our PM, Morrison has been a lot better this time. Maybe learnt from his mistakes. Both parties are bi partisan about nearly everything and the people who are driving this response are medical experts, epidemiologists, immunologists etc etc. The Tories in power doubled unemployment benefits no questions asked, on top of other extensive relief and economic stimulus packages - they have basically gone back on every political slogan they've ever used and they've actedagainst their political DNA ... the complete opposite of the austerity we expected. That alone should convince people this is for real.

There have been some major errors but there always will be in disasters. And those errors will cost lives, may have already, but we're lucky the pm is a happy clapper Jesus freak from Hillsong cos if nothing else at least the idea that saving souls or lives is entrenched in his world view. He came out today and said every Australian life matters, even the people with weeks or months to live anyway when questioned about the economics of all this.

Again I didn't actually expect that.

[Joe Hillshoist]

The point about Putin isn't that our side is better.

It's that no one is.

The best you can hope for in the state is the sort of general incompetence we have in Australia.

The point is the mere fact of Russia-gate hysteria. (Which to be fair, many here resisted from day one and were proved right.) It shouldn't be necessary to continually re-affirm these childish pro or anti positions, nor preface every discussion with 'Putin is a monster but...' You might agree this does not indicate a neutral baseline for assumption.

I didn't take much notice of Russia gate to be honest. It seemed like the sort of bullshit spoilt children come up with when they don't get their way.

Of course I reckon Russia does all sorts of online meddling and so forth. Why wouldn't it as a nation. I would in their position. They're hardly alone in that tho.

The dodgiest online bullshit comes from the like of Hacking Team, NGO or whatever they are called and other corporate surveillance organisations that push their shit everywhere. And China. Seriously... China is not the sort of place I'd ever want to be. Russia. Probably no worse than the US (except for the violent racists, who are slightly worse.)

[Joe Hillshoist]

^^Clearly just part of a plot to make Putin look bad. Probably the Atlantic Council.

/s, just in case.

More generally on Putin, I really just wish people would treat him with the same skepticism they treat western politicians. He really isn't a good guy. He's no better than Trump, just better at it.

You don't regularly advocate a similar crtitical distance to negative stories about Russia/Putin. In fact, there's a definite presumption of pro-Putin bias for merely examining the body of popular opinion pertainting to Russia (or China) without prejudice. The fact these two words 'Russia' and 'Putin' are often synonymous in popular usage should tell its own story, but somehow it does not.

China is a police surveillance state that is fucked up. Talk to some Chinese people about it, if they trust you enough. A website like this wouldn't exist in China and we'd be organ banks.

[DrEvil]

^^Clearly just part of a plot to make Putin look bad. Probably the Atlantic Council.

/s, just in case.

More generally on Putin, I really just wish people would treat him with the same skepticism they treat western politicians. He really isn't a good guy. He's no better than Trump, just better at it.

You don't regularly advocate a similar crtitical distance to negative stories about Russia/Putin. In fact, there's a definite presumption of pro-Putin bias for merely examining the body of popular opinion pertainting to Russia (or China) without prejudice. The fact these two words 'Russia' and 'Putin' are often synonymous in popular usage should tell its own story, but somehow it does not.

And I don't see you regularly advocate a critical distance to negative stories about the US/Trump, which is exactly my point: both parties should be treated with the same skepticism, but they're not. There is this black and white thinking that Russia is opposed to the US and the US is bad so Russia must be good. And sure, Russia is demonized in the western press, often cartoonishly so, but that doesn't mean they're squeaky clean.

Putin and Russia are used interchangeably for the simple reason that Putin has been in charge there for twenty years, and is currently trying to set himself up for another fifteen. That alone should tell you something about him.

And I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my skepticism to the "Russia elected Trump" narrative, I think the US managed to get him elected on their own just fine, but I also think Russia tried to influence the election, because why wouldn't they? Trump was clearly the best choice for them, so it would be very much in their interest if he was elected. Their meddling in various European countries is well established so it would be naive to assume they didn't try the same with the US, their biggest competitor.

[JackRiddler]

.

In my capacity as a mere fellow user I want to give thanks for all these replies Joe. You always put more thought and care into these than most people do, certainly including moi.

I didn't take much notice of Russia gate to be honest. It seemed like the sort of bullshit spoilt children come up with when they don't get their way.

Doesn't it seem it? It was!

Unfortunately, it was also a massive three-year psychological operation involving the corporate media in lockstep along a broad front (minus Fox & co.) in an often 24/7 campaign; the management and former management and many spinoffs of the major covert action and secret policing agencies and associated think tanks; the DNC, Clinton world, and the majority of the Democratic establishment; and a veritable cottage industry of hangers-on and grifters and just plain fan-geeks, which even had a local outlet. They propagated an attempted hegemonic narrative for explaining the 2016 election outcome and sustaining the New Cold War. Which, interestingly, failed, repeatedly, to get any traction with the vast majority of the American people, who didn't care; and then failed again in its second iteration, which was the Ukrainian Impeachment Gambit. It failed even though I'm not sure what was ever on the same scale, in the modern history of Western psyops. The "WMD=Saddam=9/11" operation of 2002-3 was just as lockstep (plus it had FOX & Co. on board and at the forefront), even more of a lie, and all-too successful in its main objective (invade and destroy Iraq and initiate a 20-year chaos war in the Middle East). But it was a very short operation by comparison, had near-zero traction outside the countries of the Bush war "coalition," and even within its heartlands was thoroughly exposed and debunked by general consensus within a year. You'd have to go back to Red Scares 1.0 and 2.0 for anything quite on the same scale and duration.

And note that Red Scare 2.0 puts us at Stalin. Wasn't he really somewhat worse than Putin? (It's hard to argue: we don't have the same contexts. Maybe Putin, if we imagine him as a victorious White general in the Russian Civil War, would have been even worse than the Bolsheviks and the dictator they spawned. But that's not the point of my question.) And yet, we look back on the Red Scare and we recognize it was a Red Scare, it was propaganda for domestic and imperialist aims, it was never primarily about Stalin or the evils of "communism." It was a lie at its fundaments even when most of its adherents believed it, even when it deployed truth opportunistically or fought autenthically against injustices here or there. It was wrong-minded, wrong -hearted, wrong morally and disastrous for the world, Americans not excluded. It was not about Stalin, just as #Russiagate was not about Putin.

And I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my skepticism to the "Russia elected Trump" narrative, I think the US managed to get him elected on their own just fine, but I also think Russia tried to influence the election, because why wouldn't they? Trump was clearly the best choice for them, so it would be very much in their interest if he was elected. Their meddling in various European countries is well established so it would be naive to assume they didn't try the same with the US, their biggest competitor.

Yeah, that's all logical and intuitive and would have been defensible as a speculative or predictive argument ahead of 2016. But it does not remotely describe the empirically observable reality of the 2016 US election and the following years.

As presented by its adherents, the case for #Russiagate rested on two pillars. The first was a tiny clickbait-ad campaign (about $100 K in spending compared to at least $4 billion in presidential election spending), the content of which was barely even related to the 2016 US election, let alone designed effectively to influence it. It was conducted by a small private business in Petrograd. The fact that this laughable bullshit was still being fronted as a primary smoking gun for "Russian meddling" and ended up in the Mueller indictments after 3+ years is itself the smoking gun that the #Russiagate complex never had shit for evidence. The second charges, at least serious if dubious, allege that the Podesta phishing exploit (a feat within the reach of any beginner spammer-hacker) and the DNC leaks to Wikileaks were the result of a Russian state hacking. Nothing else ever alleged turned out to have any evidence or substance to it, including the supposedly super-evil meeting of Kush and a Trump son with a British record promoter and a minor Russian-American lawyer regarding Magnitsky Act lobbying in New York.

This is a past event, one subject to a long investigation by authorities with law enforcement powers. You have to deal with the evidence. It does not suggest that there was any kind of major Russian state interference operation in the 2016 US election.

You might ask, why shouldn't the Russians have done this, when it seems so logical to you? What seems logical may not matter. Again, it is in the past. You have to show that they did anything, or at least point to strong indicators of their actions. A construct of the motive is insufficient even as circumstantial evidence.

The likely right question, therefore, is why didn't they interfere?

Maybe, in truth, they didn't want to risk the blowback.

Maybe they expected the same guaranteed Clinton victory that most other observers expected. Maybe it wasn't a priority for them, since they didn't expect the policy to be different even if Trump won. Maybe they expected they would have to negotiate with or confront the US regardless. Maybe they thought Clinton would make for a more stable negotiating partner? Maybe they figured they'd have New Cold War continuing in either case?

That all becomes logical if they had actually looked at the real-existing Trump, rather than the false image of Trump promoted by the #Russiagaters. Neither the Russians nor we should have had any trouble understanding that this guy, regardless of whatever policy calibrations he promised with respect to Russia, always was all about U.S. imperialism, obeisance to the MIC primacy, and continued global war. It doesn't matter whether he issued one or another tweet designed to rope in naive paleocons and sucker leftists with "America First" rhetoric. Unilateralist, sure, but isolationist? Antiwar?! Ha ha ha!

Maybe the Russians understood the US, Clinton, and Trump in 2016 better than the #Russiagaters have managed since then?

.

[Harvey]

And I don't see you regularly advocate a critical distance to negative stories about the US/Trump.

Why would I? I don't think about trump at all.

[DrEvil]

.

In my capacity as a mere fellow user I want to give thanks for all these replies Joe. You always put more thought and care into these than most people do, certainly including moi.

I didn't take much notice of Russia gate to be honest. It seemed like the sort of bullshit spoilt children come up with when they don't get their way.

Doesn't it seem it? It was!

Unfortunately, it was also a massive three-year psychological operation involving the corporate media in lockstep along a broad front (minus Fox & co.) in an often 24/7 campaign; the management and former management and many spinoffs of the major covert action and secret policing agencies and associated think tanks; the DNC, Clinton world, and the majority of the Democratic establishment; and a veritable cottage industry of hangers-on and grifters and just plain fan-geeks, which even had a local outlet. They propagated an attempted hegemonic narrative for explaining the 2016 election outcome and sustaining the New Cold War. Which, interestingly, failed, repeatedly, to get any traction with the vast majority of the American people, who didn't care; and then failed again in its second iteration, which was the Ukrainian Impeachment Gambit. It failed even though I'm not sure what was ever on the same scale, in the modern history of Western psyops. The "WMD=Saddam=9/11" operation of 2002-3 was just as lockstep (plus it had FOX & Co. on board and at the forefront), even more of a lie, and all-too successful in its main objective (invade and destroy Iraq and initiate a 20-year chaos war in the Middle East). But it was a very short operation by comparison, had near-zero traction outside the countries of the Bush war "coalition," and even within its heartlands was thoroughly exposed and debunked by general consensus within a year. You'd have to go back to Red Scares 1.0 and 2.0 for anything quite on the same scale and duration.

And note that Red Scare 2.0 puts us at Stalin. Wasn't he really somewhat worse than Putin? (It's hard to argue: we don't have the same contexts. Maybe Putin, if we imagine him as a victorious White general in the Russian Civil War, would have been even worse than the Bolsheviks and the dictator they spawned. But that's not the point of my question.) And yet, we look back on the Red Scare and we recognize it was a Red Scare, it was propaganda for domestic and imperialist aims, it was never primarily about Stalin or the evils of "communism." It was a lie at its fundaments even when most of its adherents believed it, even when it deployed truth opportunistically or fought autenthically against injustices here or there. It was wrong-minded, wrong -hearted, wrong morally and disastrous for the world, Americans not excluded. It was not about Stalin, just as #Russiagate was not about Putin.

And I'm pretty sure I've mentioned my skepticism to the "Russia elected Trump" narrative, I think the US managed to get him elected on their own just fine, but I also think Russia tried to influence the election, because why wouldn't they? Trump was clearly the best choice for them, so it would be very much in their interest if he was elected. Their meddling in various European countries is well established so it would be naive to assume they didn't try the same with the US, their biggest competitor.

Yeah, that's all logical and intuitive and would have been defensible as a speculative or predictive argument ahead of 2016. But it does not remotely describe the empirically observable reality of the 2016 US election and the following years.

As presented by its adherents, the case for #Russiagate rested on two pillars. The first was a tiny clickbait-ad campaign (about $100 K in spending compared to at least $4 billion in presidential election spending), the content of which was barely even related to the 2016 US election, let alone designed effectively to influence it. It was conducted by a small private business in Petrograd. The fact that this laughable bullshit was still being fronted as a primary smoking gun for "Russian meddling" and ended up in the Mueller indictments after 3+ years is itself the smoking gun that the #Russiagate complex never had shit for evidence. The second charges, at least serious if dubious, allege that the Podesta phishing exploit (a feat within the reach of any beginner spammer-hacker) and the DNC leaks to Wikileaks were the result of a Russian state hacking. Nothing else ever alleged turned out to have any evidence or substance to it, including the supposedly super-evil meeting of Kush and a Trump son with a British record promoter and a minor Russian-American lawyer regarding Magnitsky Act lobbying in New York.

This is a past event, one subject to a long investigation by authorities with law enforcement powers. You have to deal with the evidence. It does not suggest that there was any kind of major Russian state interference operation in the 2016 US election.

You might ask, why shouldn't the Russians have done this, when it seems so logical to you? What seems logical may not matter. Again, it is in the past. You have to show that they did anything, or at least point to strong indicators of their actions. A construct of the motive is insufficient even as circumstantial evidence.

The likely right question, therefore, is why didn't they interfere?

Maybe, in truth, they didn't want to risk the blowback.

Maybe they expected the same guaranteed Clinton victory that most other observers expected. Maybe it wasn't a priority for them, since they didn't expect the policy to be different even if Trump won. Maybe they expected they would have to negotiate with or confront the US regardless. Maybe they thought Clinton would make for a more stable negotiating partner? Maybe they figured they'd have New Cold War continuing in either case?

That all becomes logical if they had actually looked at the real-existing Trump, rather than the false image of Trump promoted by the #Russiagaters. Neither the Russians nor we should have had any trouble understanding that this guy, regardless of whatever policy calibrations he promised with respect to Russia, always was all about U.S. imperialism, obeisance to the MIC primacy, and continued global war. It doesn't matter whether he issued one or another tweet designed to rope in naive paleocons and sucker leftists with "America First" rhetoric. Unilateralist, sure, but isolationist? Antiwar?! Ha ha ha!

Maybe the Russians understood the US, Clinton, and Trump in 2016 better than the #Russiagaters have managed since then?

.

You can reach a lot of eyeballs with $100,000 on Faceborg, and that was just one part of the campaign, but you're right that they probably didn't directly interfere in the campaign. Their goal is more about stoking divisiveness and weakening people's trust in each other and their government. It's a lot easier to get your way when the opposition is too busy yelling at each other, and it's a low-cost, high impact strategy with plausible deniability baked in. IP addresses can be spoofed, evidence can be faked, so you can never know for sure the origin of the disinfo.

I still think their preferred candidate would be Trump. Even if US policy would be the same whoever ran the White House, having someone who genuinely thinks you're a great guy in charge is better than someone who doesn't.

Even Putin acknowledged that some of it could have come from non-state independent actors within Russia (nudge nudge wink wink).

[JackRiddler]

Their goal is more about stoking divisiveness and weakening people's trust in each other and their government. It's a lot easier to get your way when the opposition is too busy yelling at each other, and it's a low-cost, high impact strategy with plausible deniability baked in. IP addresses can be spoofed, evidence can be faked, so you can never know for sure the origin of the disinfo.

I can't believe you believe this shit. The "high impact" shit, especially. IRA was like one pigeon cooing for a minute at a packed stadium. IRA produced a baby fart in a shitstorm! And one then this was presented to you for three years straight by CIA types as though it was the shitstorm. Which you You know what your idea is, that this was a "high impact strategy," to Russians or any other spook strategists experienced in the arts of fucking up other countries' politics if they want to do that? It's an insult, that's what it is.

Anyway, you want to hold on to this opinion, I can see.

.

[DrEvil]

THIS POST WAS INADVERTANTLY EDITED BY MOD. SORRY!!! HERE ARE THREE ORIGINAL PASSAGES. I HOPE YOU CAN RECONSTRUCT YOUR WORK - MY FAULT!!! MORE APOLOGIES BELOW. - JR

[...]

But seriously, by "high impact" I meant relative to the cost. Spreading fud on the internet is practically free, and as long as the result is greater than zero then why not? Every little bit helps, and what do they have to lose? The US is already sanctioning the shit out of them and no one is going to start bombing over internet trolls. The US and the UK is doing the exact same thing, so clearly it's something people on both sides think has an actual effect (example: https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/form ... 7-brigade/ ), and IRA is just the public-facing part of it. Do you really think Russian intelligence isn't engaged in psyops and information warfare?

[...]

The way I see it it's a smaller version of the US full-spectrum cultural hegemony supplied by the media and Hollywood. They can't hope to compete on that level so they use smaller, cheaper tactics. It's not about dominating the narrative, but slowly eroding it.

[...]

Spreading disinfo in the US is just a tiny part of it, and probably inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Their real interests lie in Europe and Asia, and that's where they apply the big guns, like funding far-right organizations, taking out power grids, assassinating dissidents and supporting breakaway republics and coup attempts. Basically the same playbook the US applies to South-and Central America.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Fwiw there is definitely some Russian influence, well was some, in the Australian anti CSG (fracking) movement.

Obviously Australian unnatural gas is a competitor so they took notice and ... IMO anyway, were involved in some funding and other "assistance". It's wasnt just that some people were a bit sus, it was how they were sus, mind you this is years ago now, over 5 years.

[DrEvil]

Umm.. Jack, have you been mixing pills and booze again? I only wrote the quoted parts. I assume the replies are yours?

[JackRiddler]

Umm.. Jack, have you been mixing pills and booze again? I only wrote the quoted parts. I assume the replies are yours?

FUCK, I DID THAT THING AGAIN.

I AM SO SORRY.

For what it's worth, a prior moderator told me it also happened to him. That was confidential, maybe he'll pipe up in my support *cough*rex*cough.

No pills or booze needed (smart ass). I just click like an idiot on EDIT rather than QUOTE and then write my post over yours, without noticing what I've done.

Okay, I am moving my reply here, below. Can you still save your post? I restored what was left of it and am very very very very very sorry if any work is lost.

I WILL BE VIGILANT. Damn it.



SORRY SORRY SORRY

.

But seriously, by "high impact" I meant relative to the cost. Spreading fud on the internet is practically free, and as long as the result is greater than zero then why not? Every little bit helps, and what do they have to lose? The US is already sanctioning the shit out of them and no one is going to start bombing over internet trolls. The US and the UK is doing the exact same thing, so clearly it's something people on both sides think has an actual effect (example: https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/form ... 7-brigade/ ), and IRA is just the public-facing part of it. Do you really think Russian intelligence isn't engaged in psyops and information warfare?

Sure they are, they do it out in the open and legally and in a pretty big and sophisticated way, it is called RT. I can believe IRA is someone's hobby in this vein, but I doubt it. Too small, too amateur, too totally weak. And the fact the #Russiagaters had to cherrypick this pathetic "evidence" as their main thing for three years, and it was still their main thing by the time of Mueller's publication, tells you something very significant.

The way I see it it's a smaller version of the US full-spectrum cultural hegemony supplied by the media and Hollywood. They can't hope to compete on that level so they use smaller, cheaper tactics. It's not about dominating the narrative, but slowly eroding it.

It erodes itself, it's so rotten. RT need only document a bit of that to help it along. (To switch metaphors, I think RT is about as significant in eroding US cultural hegemony as I would be in driving a river downhill, if I stood at the river bank with a paddle pushing water downstream and cheering, hooray, go water, hooray!)

Spreading disinfo in the US is just a tiny part of it, and probably inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Their real interests lie in Europe and Asia, and that's where they apply the big guns, like funding far-right organizations, taking out power grids, assassinating dissidents and supporting breakaway republics and coup attempts. Basically the same playbook the US applies to South-and Central America.

So big, these guns are not. It's not good, it's bad that they are so right-wing and ally with even worse in Europe. It's also greatly exaggerated, though not to the full fabrication level of American #Russiagate. I mean, you can see the French establishment also prefers to blame Russia rather than look at Le Pen and have to acknowledge, shit, THIS IS FRANCE. Also, you have to look at this by case, and with detail and dig it up to say that for sure. Syria is obvious enough, but which breakaway republics? (Are you referring to Georgia?) Which coup attempts? Are you going to blame them for the Maidan coup? Their resources are limited, and they get a great deal of what they want and need in totally conventional, non-aggressive ways: for example, by supplying the EU with natural gas.

.

[Harvey]

I love that you're having all these problems with the tech Jack. Clumsily re-arranging the order of things by accident. It feels like something human.

[DrEvil]

Umm.. Jack, have you been mixing pills and booze again? I only wrote the quoted parts. I assume the replies are yours?

FUCK, I DID THAT THING AGAIN.

I AM SO SORRY.

For what it's worth, a prior moderator told me it also happened to him. That was confidential, maybe he'll pipe up in my support *cough*rex*cough.

No pills or booze needed (smart ass). I just click like an idiot on EDIT rather than QUOTE and then write my post over yours, without noticing what I've done.

Okay, I am moving my reply here, below. Can you still save your post? I restored what was left of it and am very very very very very sorry if any work is lost.

I WILL BE VIGILANT. Damn it.



SORRY SORRY SORRY

.

But seriously, by "high impact" I meant relative to the cost. Spreading fud on the internet is practically free, and as long as the result is greater than zero then why not? Every little bit helps, and what do they have to lose? The US is already sanctioning the shit out of them and no one is going to start bombing over internet trolls. The US and the UK is doing the exact same thing, so clearly it's something people on both sides think has an actual effect (example: https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/form ... 7-brigade/ ), and IRA is just the public-facing part of it. Do you really think Russian intelligence isn't engaged in psyops and information warfare?

Sure they are, they do it out in the open and legally and in a pretty big and sophisticated way, it is called RT. I can believe IRA is someone's hobby in this vein, but I doubt it. Too small, too amateur, too totally weak. And the fact the #Russiagaters had to cherrypick this pathetic "evidence" as their main thing for three years, and it was still their main thing by the time of Mueller's publication, tells you something very significant.

The way I see it it's a smaller version of the US full-spectrum cultural hegemony supplied by the media and Hollywood. They can't hope to compete on that level so they use smaller, cheaper tactics. It's not about dominating the narrative, but slowly eroding it.

It erodes itself, it's so rotten. RT need only document a bit of that to help it along. (To switch metaphors, I think RT is about as significant in eroding US cultural hegemony as I would be in driving a river downhill, if I stood at the river bank with a paddle pushing water downstream and cheering, hooray, go water, hooray!)

Spreading disinfo in the US is just a tiny part of it, and probably inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Their real interests lie in Europe and Asia, and that's where they apply the big guns, like funding far-right organizations, taking out power grids, assassinating dissidents and supporting breakaway republics and coup attempts. Basically the same playbook the US applies to South-and Central America.

So big, these guns are not. It's not good, it's bad that they are so right-wing and ally with even worse in Europe. It's also greatly exaggerated, though not to the full fabrication level of American #Russiagate. I mean, you can see the French establishment also prefers to blame Russia rather than look at Le Pen and have to acknowledge, shit, THIS IS FRANCE. Also, you have to look at this by case, and with detail and dig it up to say that for sure. Syria is obvious enough, but which breakaway republics? (Are you referring to Georgia?) Which coup attempts? Are you going to blame them for the Maidan coup? Their resources are limited, and they get a great deal of what they want and need in totally conventional, non-aggressive ways: for example, by supplying the EU with natural gas.

.

I agree with you about Russiagate, but I also think the Russians are engaged in influence operations, both overt, like RT, and "covert", like IRA, and actually covert through various intelligence agencies. How effective the trolls are I have no fucking clue really, I just don't think they would be doing it if it was not in some way useful to them.

Le Pen is French, but she's also funded by a Russian bank (according to her because no one else would give them a loan), but as I've repeated ad nauseum: if it was a US bank funding a far-right org somewhere in South America people would be screaming bloody murder and assuming it was all a CIA front. I don't see why I should treat Russia any different. Can I prove nefarious motives? No. Do I think there is? Yes, probably.

As for breakaway republics I was thinking of Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, plus Russian support for Ukrainian separatists. The coup attempt I was referring to was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_coup_plot

[Sounder]

Dr. Evil wrote...

How effective the trolls are I have no fucking clue really, I just don't think they would be doing it if it was not in some way useful to them.

Lets see now, is it the 'Russians' that are making western technocrats look like complicitous fools, or do they do it to themselves.


https://sputniknews.com/europe/20200406 ... andmother/

Anders Ygeman's claims of an attack on his Facebook page by “Russian trolls” over the future of 5G networks were previously dismissed by the Russian Embassy as paranoia. In reality, the over 2,000 comments turned out to have a local explanation.

Swedish Minister of Energy and Digital Development Minister Anders Ygeman has accused Russia of “destabilising the Swedish 5G debate” and targeting him in a Facebook attack. However, Swedish national broadcaster SVT found no foreign clues, as the over 2,000-comment long thread turned out to have been originated by an “ordinary Swedish grandmother”.

Earlier this year, Anders Ygeman said that every time he mentions 5G on social media he is attacked by hundreds of 5G-negative comments. He suggested that “Russian interests” were behind the attacks.

“There is a Russian competition political interest in disrupting and hindering other countries' development of 5G”, Ygeman ventured. “Obviously those comments can generate concern for ordinary Swedes. That must be the purpose of them”, Ygeman said.

While Dagens Nyheter, one of Sweden's leading dailies, ran an article called “Ygeman targeted in Russian attack”, Ygeman's allegations were dismissed by the Russian Embassy as paranoia.

“Our special congratulations go to Anders Ygeman. As we have learned, the popularity of his Facebook page has increased dramatically which we wholeheartedly congratulate him on!” the Russian Embassy wrote, adding that Russia would like to cooperate, but not with ministers “who suffer from paranoia in search of 'Russian trolls'”.

The recent research by SVT gave the Russian Embassy some merit. According to the research, the numerous replies were largely organised by a Swedish group against 5G founded by 64-year-old Katarina Hollbrink, who lives in Södermalm, Stockholm and describes herself as an “ordinary Swedish grandmother who is worried about radiation”. The minister's statement left her deeply surprised.....

That Putin guy, he has got the most awesomeness in his trolls.