Russia Is Accusing the US of 'Direct Interference' In Its Elections (businessinsider.com) 195
schwit1 shares a report from Business Insider (alternative source): Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Tuesday accused the U.S. of a "direct interference in our electoral process and internal affairs" following the State Department's criticism of Russia's decision to bar opposition leader Alexey Navalny from running in the upcoming presidential election against Vladimir Putin. "This State Department statement, which I'm sure will be repeated, is a direct interference in our electoral process and internal affairs," Zakharova wrote Tuesday on Facebook. In a statement shared with Business Insider on Tuesday night, a State Department spokesperson expressed concern over the Russian government's "ongoing crackdown against independent voices, from journalists to civil society activists and opposition politicians." "These actions indicate the Russian government has failed to protect space in Russia for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms," the statement said. "More broadly, we urge the government of Russia to hold genuine elections that are transparent, fair, and free and that guarantee the free expression of the will of the people, consistent with its international human rights obligations." Zakharova pushed back. "And these people expressed outrage over alleged Russian 'interference' in their electoral process for an entire year?!" she said.
"Pointing out that the Kremlin is interfering in its own election is not interference," adds schwit1.
Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the heat. Putin wants to maintain the *illusion* that he won in fair elections.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the heat. Putin wants to maintain the *illusion* that he won in fair elections.
He probably would win if he ever agreed to have a fair election, but he is SUCH a coward and pre-teen pussy he just doesn't dare.
Re: Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:1, Insightful)
We did...
Re: (Score:2)
We did...
*clap emoji* *clap emoji* *clap emoji* *clap emoji*
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but Russians are better educated than you guys.
Then, they kill their brain cells with vodka
Re: (Score:3)
And Russians actually believe that?
Independent polling gives Putin an approval rating of about 80%. So why wouldn't they believe it?
Re: Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:1)
That is exactly what I don't get. Those approval ratings are apparently genuine. So then why does he have to inhibit competition?
Re: Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:4, Insightful)
Those approval ratings are apparently genuine.
I know several Russians. They all generally approve of Putin, say he has made them "proud to be Russian", and given them back their self respect after the implosion of their empire and economy during the 1990s. And these are cosmopolitan Russians that regularly travel to the West. He is even more popular in the rural oblasts. Russians are proud of the way he stood up to America, and prevailed, over Crimea, the Donbas, and in Syria.
So then why does he have to inhibit competition?
Because he may not always be so popular. Also his popularity is not transferable. His deputies and cronies are nowhere near as popular as he is. If they allow a real contested election this time, they will be expected to do the same when Putin is no longer around.
Re: (Score:3)
And what entity created the survey?
The polls are conducted by independent journalists, many of them Western. Also, some polls include expat Russians living abroad, who have little fear of reprisals.
Putin is genuinely popular with the Russian people. Why wouldn't he be? Americans don't like him because he has repeatedly outmaneuvered us and made the West look impotent. But Russians see all that as a good thing. Whey wouldn't they?
Here are some hard facts that are never challenged by Russian citizens.
The concept of "objective truth", disjoined from self-interest, has never really been part of Russian culture
Re:Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably, Russia's involvement in the US elections was aimed at this goal, at least in part. It has long been Russia's intent to smear the "great experiement" that is the United States of America's democracy; claims that the US is as corrupt and venal as anyone else have been part and parcel of their dialog for nearly a century.
This is not only an attempt to weaken the US but also to make Russia's own politics look better in comparison. After all, if the United States - long champion of democracy - can't ensure honest elections, it is hardly fair to expect any other nation to do so either. Putin's own political maneuverings were suspect long before 2016. While Navalny, an anti-corruption activist isn't expected to win in the 2018 Russian elections, he has gathered a sizeable following who threaten Putin's absolute power. They will be very suspicious of Putin's victory, even were it completely on the up-and-up (which, it is widely believed, will not be).
But by casting blame on the US, Putin can misdirect the blame; if the US can't secure their own elections from foreign influence, it's no surprise if poor impoverished Russia is even more vulnerable. Thus, if Putin wins /despite/ such influence, it only further legitimizes his victory.
Re: (Score:3)
You're spot on. Their chess game has moved more in the last couple of years than in decades. The fact that so many Americans even put them on the same level is a huge step. People now thinking they are comparing yabloki to yabloki, is a huge win for the Kremlin.
--
Apple's to Apple's, dust to dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably, Russia's involvement in the US elections was aimed at this goal, at least in part. It has long been Russia's intent to smear the "great experiement" that is the United States of America's democracy; claims that the US is as corrupt and venal as anyone else have been part and parcel of their dialog for nearly a century.
This is not only an attempt to weaken the US but also to make Russia's own politics look better in comparison. After all, if the United States - long champion of democracy - can't ensure honest elections, it is hardly fair to expect any other nation to do so either. Putin's own political maneuverings were suspect long before 2016. While Navalny, an anti-corruption activist isn't expected to win in the 2018 Russian elections, he has gathered a sizeable following who threaten Putin's absolute power. They will be very suspicious of Putin's victory, even were it completely on the up-and-up (which, it is widely believed, will not be).
But by casting blame on the US, Putin can misdirect the blame; if the US can't secure their own elections from foreign influence, it's no surprise if poor impoverished Russia is even more vulnerable. Thus, if Putin wins /despite/ such influence, it only further legitimizes his victory.
How many congress men have the Koch brothers bought? And senators too? Where is American democracy if the congressman looks to only respond to his next election financiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Course, you got so butthurt over it you created a word
I like how you're so butthurt about people pointing out flaws in your argument that you pre-emptively point them out and then whine about it, rather than have sensible arguments.
You know, stuff like complaining about how the USSR "didn't respect human rights" while
Classic whataboutery. Tell me: does the second half of the sentance in any way ustify the USSR human rights abuses?
No, of course it doesn't and this is why it's whataboutery.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about historical events from 60+ years ago - So because another country once did something bad almost a century ago, its okay to do it today?
You can legitimise any evil deed using this thought process - It is the reasoning of a psychopath, and a sickening and dangerous way to think
(Someone once murdered somebody, so its okay if you murder someone today)
Re: (Score:2)
The US-backed coup in Honduras in 2009 wasn't 60 years ago. The point of brining up Jim Crow is to show that the United States has always been a thousand pounds of human-rights violating excrement crammed into a five pound sack when complaining about the USSR/Russia. You wanna stick with current events, can you name the last time Russia tried to overthrow a foreign government? Compared to four just under Obama, with two of them successful: Venezue
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is in the process of invading the Ukraine
Forget about the US, its got nothing to do with the behaviour of Russia - You can't justify the evil actions of your country just because "another country once did it"
This is how a psychopath will rationalize everything
You've really got to break your mind out of thinking this way - Its not healthy
Re: (Score:2)
American Exceptionalists have been in the process of claiming that for years now. Nothing to back up those claims but social media posts from your literal neo-Nazi pals in Ukraine, though. How are your anti-semetic fascist friends doing these days?
Or, you could pull your head out. Even if the whining about a Russian invasion turned out to be true, it would be infinitely more just
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American - I hold the same views as the rest of the world
Nobody outside Russia believes that Russia has not invaded the Ukraine
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a Western Exceptionalist then - a superset which includes American Exceptionalists....which means you're still exceptionally stupid.
To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, the neat thing about facts is that they don't give a shit what you believe. And it's a fact that as much evidence has been presented that Russia has invaded Ukraine as there has been that Russia hacked the election last year: zero.
And you skipped
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's exactly what it means. Russiagaters have had more than a year to put up or STFU up on their claims. Until you guys offer more evidence to back up your claims than the flat earthers/chem trailers/birthers/antivaxxers do, you are just as full of shit as they are.
Eh.
Vi.
Dence.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm waiting for Mueller to finish investigating before talking about quantity of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what amount of time and resources Mueller's got. His investigation is not finished, and therefore we don't know what he's got in the way of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we know and here's how: if this were an actual investigation the first thing Mueller would have subpoenaed would be the DNC servers that were allegedly hacked. It's the central Jenga block upon which the entire Russigate narrative is based - but he's shown no interest in having the FBI analyze them. Dems keep wanting to hang their hat on
Re: (Score:2)
The DNC servers are where to start? There's plenty of other places to start, and some of them may be more clear. (The fact that servers were broken into doesn't necessarily get you much info on who did it, or that there's more useful information that Mueller doesn't already know.)
Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that Mueller is not approaching his investigation in the way you would. In fact, Mueller probably knows more than you or I about conducting such an investigation, and therefo
Re: (Score:2)
1905 called - they want their Russian tu quoque deflection whataboutism back. [wikipedia.org]
Bitches don't know bout public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I suddenly feel gaslit? (Score:4, Funny)
Why do I suddenly feel gaslit?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought your comment was insightful and interesting, but funny didn't cross my mind.
--
EOF
Re: (Score:2)
I just wrote the comment I didn't mod it.
My point was all of a sudden Russia is implying that we are or we intend on messing with their elections. Yet they have no evidence of this but there is some evidence that they were influencing ours and tons of evidence that they are manipulating their own.
So now they are gaslighting and acting like they are the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was all of a sudden Russia is implying that we are or we intend on messing with their elections. Yet they have no evidence of this but there is some evidence that they were influencing ours and tons of evidence that they are manipulating their own.
There is evidence in both cases, just not in the way you think. Every country screws with other countries. Hell the US was interfering in Canadian elections. Environmental groups in Canada were getting back-channel funds through US environmental groups who'd been sucking off the tit of the CFPB. Think there's a reason that even after the previous government left power that the CRA(akin to the IRS) is still investigating this? There's also serious problems in CFPB land with the person who was overseeing [dailycaller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Trump may be but I'm not seeing the gaslighting part much on him he seems to be very confident in his lies and I've been astounded at how far the rest of the govt will go to justify what he has said only for him to say a few days later no I meant what I said, repeatedly discrediting the people who are there to support him.
Yes that or at least the parts you quoted was a good speech.
I didn't pay any attention to the primaries as I don't see any point in keeping track of decisions I have no voice in.
It doesn't
Making a "statement" constitutes interference? (Score:1)
Explain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alice: The CIA invented AIDS to kill black people!
Bob: What evidence do you have of that?
Alice: Racist!! Believe the victims!!1!!one
Re: Making a "statement" constitutes interference? (Score:2)
No, saying shit like "grab em by the pussy", and I'm rich they let me do what I want, makes you a sexist asshole.
Stop skewing the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm rich they let me do what I want, makes you a sexist asshole.
So how does that work out with Bill & Hillary, and Hillary directly attacking the people who made claims? Right...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the Democrats, truths told about your candidate is considered divisive and constitutes interference.
So either both of these acts are interference, or neither of them are.
Re: (Score:1)
gasÂlight
ËÉaslÄt/
verb
gerund or present participle: gaslighting
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
"in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband"
Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are russian elections? I thought it was all rigged in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
There are russian elections? I thought it was all rigged in the first place.
In Russia it's a toss up between rigging the elections or shooting the other guy in the back ... choices, choices ...
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Funny)
You can vote for Putin, the dead guy, or the guy who isn't allowed to run.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can vote for Putin, the dead guy, or the guy who isn't allowed to run.
...and the pustule riddled guy in the wheelchair who glows in the dark because he forgot to scan his food with a geiger counter.
Re: Wait... (Score:4, Funny)
WHAT!? We only get two choices here in America.
Re: Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US and Russia are frighteningly similar. Both are authoritarian states which likes to pretend they are not, both have a population which is heavily indoctrinated "to love their country", do as you're told, ask no questions and never question the ruling class or political system.
Not that I'd expect you to admit to it, or even recognize it though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Both are authoritarian states which likes to pretend they are not
America is not authoritarian. You may want to look up what the word means.
Russia is openly authoritarian, and does not pretend otherwise.
both have a population which is heavily indoctrinated "to love their country"
So does every other country ever.
Putin is genuinely popular among Russians (Score:2)
The totally biased media may be one reason for this. But Russians like a "strong" man and Putin would easily win even if the elections were fair.
Re: Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
America is not authoritarian. You may want to look up what the word means.
"Authoritarianism is [wikipedia.org] a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms." Check. "Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities: Limited political pluralism," (Check [thenation.com].) "[...] A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" (Check [thehill.com].) "Minimal social mobilization" (Check [nymag.com].) "Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers." (Check [qz.com].) ... you were saying?
Russia is openly authoritarian, and does not pretend otherwise.
That's not at question currently, but thanks for handwaving.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So Obama writing those orders despite congressional action or inaction to the contrary is Nothing To See Here Folks and Trump rescinding many of them is zOMG Executive Overreach...please.
Learn to read, son. Here's the first paragraph from the article on executive overreach:
If you can't read, don't post. Period, the end. You're a carbuncle on the ass of Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
There has usually (maybe always) been tension between the Legislative and Executive branches, and I think the Founders might well have intended that. The Judicial branch is supposed to decide what's legit and what's overreaching, not random internet commentators.
As a leftist, having Trump rescind many of those EOs is bad for the country, but not normally executive overreach. The FCC may or may not have overreached; I don't know enough of the relevant law to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cute. No answer the question: how is Trump overreaching where his predecessor wasn't?
The question was not whether Trump was authoritarian (he is) or whether he is more authoritarian than Obama (who cares, but yes, he is — he's an alleged "law and order" president and his VP definitely has a hard-on for same) but whether America is authoritarian. You're trying to shift the debate, but it's not just about Trump. Trump is both symptom and disease.
Re: (Score:1)
The ballots of dictatorships usually resemble:
A. [_] Your wonderful Mr. Dictator
B. [_] Death
Re: (Score:3)
The funny part is that the criticism from the State Department is nothing considering that in the past it went to much greater lengths to influence the outcome of Russia's elections.
Ya Right (Score:2)
Well if Putin is not elected and thrown completely out of the government, then I might think there was a 2% chance this is true.
Maybe a printer in the US was sub-contracted to print ballots with an X already in Putin's Box :)
Re:Ya Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Russians know all that. They're not generally that stupid. Billions didn't magic their way into Putin's accounts.
They don't care, at some level they appear to crave a Czar...Isn't he living in England?...Finland? (the actual Czar, by traditional succession) He should run.
The only thing I know for sure: Everytime a foreigner attacks Putin, we make him stronger in Russia. Our meddling will be even less effective than Russia's was.
The only thing that can save Russia is high oil prices.
Saudi better be guarding Abqaiq. It sure would be a shame if something happened to it and Russia's problems get solved. What if the Saudis outsource security to Russians? Then again, how hard would it be to disguise a precision missile as some junk the Yeminis would be shooting?
I don't get how it's still standing. Even surrounded by exclusion zones, defenses and covered by news blackout. Likely better defended than the White House. Has to be the world's most valuable and profitable target.
funny but (Score:2)
The Russian elections are a total sham. There's no way Putin isn't going to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you put your chocolate in my peanut butter! (Score:2)
You put peanut butter on my chocolate!
Ob (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, kettle mocks pot!
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, pot and kettle mock you!
FTFY. You're welcome.
FUCK YOU RUSSIA (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously...
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. But, it's entirely aboveboard, unlike the secret (at the time) Russian interference.
That's not to say the US isn't doing their own dirty tricks in secret, but that's not what the article is about.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly was the (no longer secret?) interference? Was it a video? If so, do you have a link for it (assuming that it won't take control over my mental faculties--turning me into a Manchurian Candidate [wikipedia.org])?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is. But, it's entirely aboveboard, unlike the secret (at the time) Russian interference.
I think we need to qualify "interfering" a bit more carefully. IMHO, interfering with an election means you are trying to pick a winner. That's not the same as commenting on the events and episodes of a foreign election in a way that expresses your own interests. The fairness of foreign elections is a legitimate interest of all democratic countries.
And then, there is colluding. That's not just a foreign power interfering with an election. Colluding means a candidate joins forces with a foreign power that is
What election? (Score:3)
What election? Putin has no legal political opponent that has any chance of winning.
Dear Russia (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A joke (Score:5, Funny)
We should hack their elections and make Hillary win.
Re:A joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't the Russian people suffered enough?
Re: (Score:1)
If I wanted to punish them, I'd have said Trump.
Projecting their own crimes (Score:1)
Typical 1959 KGB manual of election interference in foreign nations.
How CIA, MI6 can win any Russian election (Score:2)
Use full powers of CIA anthropologists to study Russian mind.
A diverse set of US graduates end up working for CIA, many will have good ideas on how to alter Russian elections.
The past efforts of innovate Colour revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] attempts are now well understood by most nations security services the CIA wants to change governments in.
Security services watch US a
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it's been tried. When Putin was PM, running to get his old job back, we tried to sway the election. It didn't work. Nor does it seem likely that it worked when Putin returned the favor last year, though the investigation is ongoing.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a color revolution using existing political leaders this time.
Its about creating a new political party in Russia to win next elections. Not using existing political parties. A new face and new party.
New ideas f
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing, start to finish, would have to be conceived, run and funded solely and entirely by Russians. Not one sticker from outside. The most we can do is to encourage someone to have the idea. Even then there's the
Nut Job (Score:1)
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was quoted as stating, "We in Russia don't want to let any nut job run for President. Such would be detrimental to a democracy. Look at President Donald Trump as an example. Or a psychopath like Vladimir Putin." Maria Zakharova's body was found shortly afterwards floating face down in the river and shot in the back with twenty bullets. Police are ruling it as one of the worst suicides of the political season.
Alexey Navalny (Score:2)
Reading Wikipedia page on Alexey Navalny [wikipedia.org], it will be difficult to make one's mind about that story: the anti-corruption candidate is banned from election because he was convicted in a corruption case.
Of course that could be a dirty trick to get rid of him. The ECHR invalided a first ruling, because Russia had violated Navalny's right to a fair trial. There has been a second ruling where he was also convincted, and he is going to the ECHR again. We do not have the final word.
Not interference? (Score:2)
I'd generally agree but then for the most part the "Russian interference" mostly amounted to highlighting that one of the US major political parties was interfering in the US Election by stacking the deck against the popular candidate (Sanders) in favor the establishment leader (H. Clinton).
Clinton claims she wasn't complicit in that but if it's revealed that you've been winning the poker tournament with a
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look, yet another Russian puppet account.
Re:bad for you... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton was President of the United States in 1996.
Boris Yeltsin was President of Russia in 1996.
Both were running for reelection.
Should our president not be allowed to talk to presidents of other countries who are running for reelection? Should certain topics have been forbidden?
Maybe Russians could be upset about this but Clinton was acting in what he believed the interests of the United States were at the time.
I'm not seeing any scandal there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes,
Let's suppose another nation was having an election and there was a choice of an incumbent who was US friendly but the challenger promised to nationalize all the foreign industry that had invested in their country and built plants.
Should the President of the US not even talk to the current President of that country and offer him or her some words of wisdom.
This is entirely different from launching a propaganda campaign to influence the electorate.
And if Netanyahu wants to openly praise Trump or offer hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To draw a closer analogy you would have to say Putin called up Hillary and advised her on how to run her campaign, but that's not what people suspect.
The theory is that Russia (at Putin's direction) flooded social media with divisive political rhetoric. To what end? Perhaps political revenge? Bill Clinton did support Yeltsin in '96. Putin has been accused of much worse than unleashing an army of Facebook trolls.
I can't say what Putin thinks, but I suspect anything that weakens NATO and the US is a
Re: (Score:3)
And they interfere with ours as was proven.
[Citation needed]
The above should be labeled informative (Score:1)
Unfortunately the chances of that with Slashdot's oh so sensitive population is about nil these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You whined about a source without bothering to address anything stated. Which means you concede the point, because if you could rebut it, you would.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean butthurt American Exceptionalism at its most obnoxious. There's a Time cover linked upthread of the U.S. boasting about interfering to get Yeltsin elected. As opposed to Russiagate, which has no evidence to back it up and never will, as it's hysterical partisan Birther-type bullshit. Except now it's coming from Democrats.
And the smallest "bad thing"=same as you (Score:1)
Because overt rude comments are out of order, but covert attacks combined with overt insults and direct corruption are fine and not even worth mentioning.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like it's only "fake news" if it's something you don't like or want to hear.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual, things are only bad when other people do them to you. But are fine when you do them to them.
Making public, fully attributed, on the record press statements isn't even remotely like what Russia has been doing to other countries. Its basically the opposite.
The way I see it, the most interesting part of this story is Putin getting his panties in a twist over such a small thing. It reveals that, contrary to all of the shirtless photos of him performing as the most manly strong-man on the planet, he's actually deeply insecure about his position on top of the throne over there. And really, he ought to
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Internal affairs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash: Most countries try to influence other countries, and they do it in a lot more ways that social media and fake news. This has only become 'news' because certain people feel the need to believe this past US election was somehow different. Sad bunch of morons.
Allegedly, the 2016 US election was different.
It's one thing for a foreign government to try to influence(*) another country's election. It's yet another when one of the campaigns in an election colludes with a foreign power to gain an advantage in that election. Whether that happened or not, and to what extent, is what Robert Mueller and his team are investigating.
(*) By "influence" I mean an active effort (overt or covert) by Country A to try to sway the election towards a particular candidate in Country