The New Russophobia 2

Note on terminology.  Sergey Armeyskov notes that perhaps it is time to use a new term to describe this ubiquitous phenomena. He says Russomania, not Russophobia, is a better term to use.

See Russomania

Quote:

It’s not ‘Russophobia‘ because it’s not ‘phobia’ per se (although this element can also be present). It’s a mania, obsession with a conspiracy theory that #TheRussiansDidIt*, based on a belief with no solid proof. Finally, it’s a meme.

Except that there is the same distinction as there is between "Jewish" and "Israel", only a bit more blurry because in the case of Russia it is the same word.

If you are talking about untrustworthy thieving Russians, it is likely racism.

If you are talking about a Russian doping campaign, hacking,  bombing, and fake media propaganda, it is actually fair criticism of a government.

Right, more trivialization. Merry Christmas to you too. 

<strong>President of Council on American-Islamic Relations, Hussam Alyoush</strong> wrote:

I'm sad about the crashed Russian military jet. The TU-154 could have carried up to 180 military personnel instead of just 92!

Tweets of Joy for Russian plane crash.

Hussam Alyoush has close ties to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the USA. You know. American "liberals".

Wow. Obtuse, much votd? My claim was that if you want to evaluate whether something is Russophobic or not, ask yourself whether, by replacing "Russian" with "Jew" in statements that (others think) are Russophobic, you also find them offensive?

This isn't rocket science. What a lot of fakery from the usual suspects.

ikosmos wrote:

Wow. Obtuse, much votd? My claim was that if you want to evaluate whether something is Russophobic or not, ask yourself whether, by replacing "Russian" with "Jew" in statements that (others think) are Russophobic, you also find them offensive?

This isn't rocket science. What a lot of fakery from the usual suspects.

Yes, I find it offensive with "Jews", because I know that it's likely referring to Jewish people in general, regardless of their political affiliations.

I don't usually find it offensive with "Russians"(or "Americans" or "Canadians" etc,) because I know that, in most cases of geopolitical discussion, it's likely referring to the government, which is fair game.  

1.

Yuri Buryukov, Adviser to Ukrainian President Poroshenko wrote:

“It is a paradoxical paradox that residents of the neighboring horde do not understand why we are so happy about the deaths of 80 military men of the horde’s army… A plane of the Russian MoD plonked… We’ve got only one wish – to bring a bottle of Boyaryshnik to the embassy of the horde.”

Buryukov was celebrating not only the deaths of the musicians, ballerinas, humanitarian workers, journalists, etc., in the plane that crashed but also the many that were poisoned by fake alcohol in Siberia recently ...

Truly "European" values in today's Ukraine. That is, if by European we mean the determined sponsorship of terrorists and giddy enthusiasm for the deaths of dozens of civilians ...

Poroshenko's Adviser: a celebration of civilian deaths with a bottle of methyl alcohol ...

2. For those who can read Russian ...

The Top 100 Russophobes of 2016.

What's interesting about the list is how many "liberal" Russians are on the list.

notables include ...

1. Maria Arbatov

2. Michael Abizov

12. Zbignew Brzezinski

31. Boris Johnson

38. Ashton Carter

39. Gary Kasparov

42. Hilary Clinton

56. Angela Merkel

58. Federica Mogherini

62. Francois Hollande

65. Samantha Power

68. Vladimir Posner

69. Petr Poroshenko

76. George Soros

Now, off the top of my head, the only Canada-hating Canadian that comes to mind is former PM Stephen Harper (before he became PM. This stuff got shoved down the rabbit hole of forget by the MSM once he was PM). So I'm going to suggest that when you've got that many Russians on a Russophobic list, you can attribute some of it to familiarity, but some also to the very successful efforts of foreign governments to influence Russian "opinion makers"...

They can brainwash Filipinos to love the USA more than the Philipines. And, they can influence Russians to hate their own country ...

The war of ideas truly is a global phenomena. And we're all being targetted.

duplicate post

OH, look. The petulant Obama regime ... going out with a bang.

US expels 35 Russian diplomats, closes 2 compounds

Quote:

Thirty-five Russian diplomats have been expelled from the US, according to a statement from State Department. President Obama described those expelled as “intelligence operatives,” also announcing the closure of two Russian compounds, in New York and Maryland.

The Russian diplomats would be given 72 hours to leave US soil. They are expelled for acting in a "manner inconsistent with their diplomatic status," the statement reads.

The Russian staff will also be denied access to the New York and Maryland compound as of noon on Friday, the source added.

A Mecouris wrote:

Like many of Obama’s other recent moves, this one is not really targeted at Russia.  The additional sanctions will hardly affect Russia, though the wholesale expulsion of Russian diplomats will undoubtedly complicate the work of Russian diplomatic missions in the US.

The true target of these sanctions is Donald Trump.

By imposing sanctions on Russia, Obama is lending the authority of the Presidency to the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking, daring Trump to deny their truth.

If Trump as President allows the sanctions to continue, he will be deemed to have accepted the CIA’s claims of Russian hacking as true.  If Trump cancels the sanctions when he becomes President, he will be accused of being Russia’s stooge.

It is a well known lawyer’s trick, and Obama the former lawyer doubtless calculates that either way Trump’s legitimacy and authority as President will be damaged, with the insinuation that he owes his Presidency to the Russians now given extra force.

Like so many of Obama’s other moves in the last weeks of his Presidency, it is an ugly and small minded act, seeking to undermine his successor as President in a way that is completely contrary to US tradition.

Can you say "Crash and Burn" ? This President is leaving a burning hulk of the Oval Office.

Really classy. aha ha ha ha.

See BREAKING: Obama imposes more sanctions on Russia over claims of Russian hacking

All hail the new Russo-American empire !!

Where will it lead?

ikosmos wrote:

And the division of Poland.

No, Iran will do.

Patrick Lawrence in The Nation: The Perils of Russophobia

"Anyone too young to remember HUAC and the destruction the Cold War wrought should study up. We are a few short steps away from both."

Cue babbler Smith. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Quote:

It is essential, as I suggest, to understand our moment in historical context. Then each of us must decide, just as those called before the HUAC had to: Do I acquiesce or participate in this freakish exercise in crowd control and fear-mongering, or do I repudiate a propaganda campaign as irrational and morally wrong as any concocted during the McCarthy years? At last the question confronts us, and it is especially acute this time for those self-described as progressives: Is one a descendant of that muddled, gutless lot known as Cold War liberals, or does one insist on clear sight and principle even in the face of the ideological blasts our corporate media deliver daily?

Think it through: This is the imperative of our moment—a significant moment, because the American propaganda machine is now unusually challenged. Its efficacy is no longer the certainty it was during the Cold War decades. My own view, to be clear straightaway, is without ambivalence. It is our minds that are the objects of this onslaught: They are finally what is at issue. Surrender yours to this most flagrant case of scapegoating—hatred and anxiety conjured from thin air—and your place in the history books will be with the ghosts of all the shrill Cold Warriors and cowering chumps of decades past.

So? Which is it? Cowering chump? Or champion of freedom?

ikosmos wrote:

The Iranians know very well, if they didn't figure that out with the US sponsorship of Iraq and their chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq War, that after the Western/jihadist dismemberment of Syria, Iran would be next. This is a very powerful motivation for helping Syria to remain as a single, sovereign state.

It also coincides with the right thing to do.

The reason I mention Iran: didn't you notice the Trump appointees who want war with Iran?  How would Trump get his choice for Secretary of State confirmed by Senators like McCain and Graham?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Oh, and further to the impending McCarthyism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-ban-sessums-trump-backers-f...

Quote:

Facebook temporarily banned bestselling author and journalist Kevin Sessums after he described Donald Trump supporters as a “nasty fascistic lot” in a post.

Sessums said the comment was in reaction to a tweet by ABC political analyst Matthew Dowd, who said that he had been called by “lovely ‘christian’ Trump fans: a Jew, faggot, retard.”

If that dynamic was there, it doesn't seem to be directed at the people Lawrence claims are under threat..

What... because he dared to call someone a fascist for saying things like that?

No worries. As I was asking, if he or others here think the cyberattacks and propaganda are a good thing because they are directed at bringing down western imperialism, that is their privilege. But to pretend that they don't exist is at this point absurd. This has not just been directed at Hillary Clinton.

I'll stop short of calling them deranged though. That is not what is going on here.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No worries. As I was asking, if he or others here think the cyberattacks and propaganda are a good thing because they are directed at bringing down western imperialism, that is their privilege. But to pretend that they don't exist is at this point absurd. This has not just been directed at Hillary Clinton.

I'll stop short of calling them deranged though. That is not what is going on here.

I hate cyber attacks and propaganda. I also hate spies and their lies. I happen to believe that all spy agencies are engaged in hacking into other countries systems. I also believe China, the US, Israel and Russia undoubtedly have the capability to hack whatever they want to if they put resources to it.  Seems to me that they didn't try to hack the various computer voting machines.

YOu have a story that says the US security establishment claims its true and you actually take it on face value.  WMD's, babies murdered in incubators, viagra fueled rape squads. Given the list of things that US security agencies have accused other countries of I remain a skeptic.

Quote:

 Point 1 for all Russophobes, but especially the “progressive” variety: There are costs attached to this swoon into perfect gullibility. It leaves the door open to worsening what is already a dangerous level of global tension, and chief among those served are the Pentagon, its NATO subsidiary, military contractors, and Capitol Hill warmongers who act in behalf of these three. Ask yourself, liberal: Is this where I line up? Suddenly you are willing to take the CIA’s word for anything at all? You accept what the Times publishes as true—and the complete truth, nothing left out—because it is in the Times? Given the historical record in both cases, this is very odd. So is the fact that capital “D” Democrats are now leading the Russophobic charge. That used to be the work of rightist reactionaries. One feels like Rip van Winkle, awakening to find the world a different place.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-perils-of-russophobia/

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

You sir are once again beating the crap out of a straw person. But then again that is always your default when confronted with a reasonable argument.

What I love about you is that you rightly claim that you are immune to US propaganda and still somehow independently arrive at the same conclusions 99% of the time. 

Frankly if the Democratic establishment had not sandbagged Sanders and actively supported Hillary in truly mind boggling anti-democratic machinations there would be only one story to talk about. Sanders kicks Trump's Ass Back to the Dragon Den. Instead they stole the nomination and are now whining that someone tried to steal the election by outting their nasty dirty tricks campaign.

Quote:

 As this magazine demanded in an editorial last week, let’s see the evidence supporting all these allegations of Russian interference in the American political process. Robby Mook, who managed Hillary Clinton’s campaign, asserted within a couple of hours of the first e-mail leaks last summer that the Democrats were certain it was the Russians—and certain, somehow, of their motives. That bit of chicanery has ever since been my cue: I will believe it when I see proof and emphatically not before. A few points here: One, a number of highly qualified intelligence veterans, including the estimable Ray McGovern, now say the e-mail caches at issue were almost certainly leaked, not hacked—an inside job. This, too, deserves more light, never mind you have read not one word of it in the corporate media. Two, assume for a sec that Russia is indeed the responsible party. Next to Washington’s routinely vicious cyber-sabotage campaigns, the exposed material stacks up as little more than a frivolous gossip column. 

jjuares wrote:

I am sorry but I just can't share the outrage. I have no problem believing that the Russians may be behind the hacking.

I am not asking you to share any outrage. I didn't even say I was outraged. My point, as I just said, was not whether or not anyone thinks Russia was right, or whether the Americans deserved it.

But I am relieved there is someone here who recognizes that this happens, and isn't reflexively rejecting it.

So far all we have is people dismissing it out of hand because you can't trust the CIA or security experts, ignoring the evidence that is there, and the fact this same very specific  malware has been used in attacks in Europe. Instead, the latest narrative is that it was a disgruntled insider just because someone said so.

Not to mention there was a warning about this attack long before this even became an issue.

voice of the damned wrote:

it's the CIA saying "Russia hacked the American political parties in order to help get Trump elected." Trump, of course, being the guy who ended up winning the election.

There is no proof of that motive and those who found the Russian hack to be a near certainty also say that would be virtually impossible to prove. So yes, it is an opinion. But it is one advised by a good deal of past evidence of similar attacks in Europe, and strong circumstantial evidence in this case.

And frankly the best example of complete fabrication and bias was Comey's action in the last week of the campaign. That has since been proven to be based on absolutely nothing.

josh wrote:

jjuares wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well sure, but my point is it is NOT just the Americans. And there actually is evidence. The curious thing about all of these so-called skeptical articles is that none of them look at that evidence, even though it has been corroborated by several sources. They all dismiss it because it comes from security companies - ironically, the people who have the technical expertise when it comes to security.

Kind of like dismissing medical evidence because you can't trust doctors. But feel free.

 

 

I am sorry but I just can't share the outrage. I have no problem believing that the Russians may be behind the hacking. Which means that they shared some embarassing personal correspondence that may have influenced some voters. But my goodness look how the Americans have involved themselves in the governance of other nations, coups, bribery, invasions etc.

No question. That was wrong. And this was wrong.

I love this denouncing of Russia in the Russophobia thread by people who noisily insist that there is no Russophobia, anywhere and, certainly not by themselves.

Round up the usual Russian suspects.

That seems to be the name of the game.

The Putin regime is pretty well as neo-liberal, domestically, as our own. There's plenty to criticize there for those geniunely interested in the domestic struggles in that country. The mock liberals are a diversion but anyone with half a brain can see through those 5th columnists.

Foreign policy wise, however, as far as I'm concerned, Russia is playing a brilliant role in the world today. They deserve our respect and praise.

That's it.