How Putin could yet save Britain from Brexit - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14859374
Potemkin wrote:The Allies had earned their victory over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan the hard way.

If you talk about "Allies" you mean first of all Russia, which paid the biggest price in the fight against Nazi Germany, don't you?

You see, Russian frustration goes back much further than the post-Soviet period. As soon as Germany and Japan were defeated, the Western allies turned against their Russian allies together with their former enemies.
#14859386
Atlantis wrote:If you talk about "Allies" you mean first of all Russia, which paid the biggest price in the fight against Nazi Germany, don't you?

You see, Russian frustration goes back much further than the post-Soviet period. As soon as Germany and Japan were defeated, the Western allies turned against their Russian allies together with their former enemies.

Lenin and Stalin were committing genocide before Hitler even came to power. Stalin was an ally of Hitler. We don't know what effect Polish resistance would have had on the war if it hadn't been crushed by Hitler's ally invading from the East.
#14859404
After we've discussed the collapse of the USSR we should get back to the original topic perhaps.

Bloomberg wrote:U.K. Probes Russian Social Media Influence in Brexit Vote

By Jeremy Kahn

2017. november 2. 14:18 CET Updated on 2017. november 2. 15:26 CET


  • Will examine whether financing, transparency rules broken
  • May look to update rules to encompass digital advertising

The U.K. elections regulator is looking at whether Russia tried to use social media to illegally influence the Brexit referendum campaign.

Bob Posner, the U.K. Electoral Commission’s director of political finance and regulations, said in a blog posted to the regulator’s website on Tuesday that it was speaking to Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. about who paid for political advertising in the run-up to the June 2016 EU referendum and the May 2017 general election.

"Any receipt of impermissible donations by registered campaigners or political parties campaigning at the EU referendum, either from the U.K. or overseas, would be a serious breach of law," the Commission said in a statement Thursday. Any evidence of illegality will be referred to the police, Posner said.

"Where we feel wider change to the law is required, or action needed by others, then we will report to the U.K. government and to Parliament," he added.

The move from the regulator follows demands in October by a Labour Party lawmaker, calling for an investigation into whether “dark money” played a role in the Brexit referendum.

A spokesman from Twitter said the company "recognizes that the integrity of the election process itself is integral to the health of a democracy. As such, we will continue to facilitate and support formal investigations by government authorities into election interference as required."

A Facebook spokeswoman said “To date, we have not observed that the known, coordinated clusters in Russia engaged in significant coordination of ad buys or political misinformation targeting the Brexit vote.”

The Electoral Commission’s probe is just one of several British government inquiries into possible Russian attempts to influence the Brexit vote. Arron Banks, a millionaire insurance entrepreneur who funded campaigns for Britain to leave the European Union, is being investigated by the U.K. Electoral Commission.

The U.K. data regulator is looking into how personal data was used to target ads during the campaign. And a House of Commons select committee has asked social media companies to hand over documents pertaining to Russian-linked accounts that may have been active during the referendum campaign.

The U.K. investigations follow revelations about widespread Russian interference in the November 2016 U.S. presidential election. Russia is accused of buying thousands of ads on Facebook and using hundreds of fake accounts on both Facebook and Twitter to promote content aimed at exacerbating "societal divisions," according to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee.

Posner said in his blog post that the content of political advertisements, and any misinformation or "fake news," was not within the Commission’s remit. But U.K. law prohibits anyone not resident in the U.K. -- other than British citizens living overseas -- from buying political advertising. Foreign individuals and entities are also prohibited from donating directly to political parties. The Commission can investigate violations of these rules.

In the past, the commission has also recommended that online campaign material should have to include a statement about who paid for its publication. But that suggestion has not yet been adopted. Currently, only print advertising is required to carry such transparency notices. "The time has come for these important matters to be legal requirements," Posner said.

I wonder if Banks will be the UK's Manafort. :excited:
#14859406
Beren wrote:Come on PI, do you really believe the USSR collapsed because of Gorbachev? They collapsed because they didn't realise what the Chinese did in the late 70's and didn't do what they did under Deng. Gorbachev was too little, too late actually.


Yes, I believe it. The problems did not appear until Gorbachev and his faction started implementing liberal reforms. This allowed all of the problems that were kept silent to be voiced openly. And it allowed regional nationalism to grow and express itself.

There were growing economic problems which needed to be dealt with but they were still tolerable in the early 1980s. After this the economic reforms created massive problems. And it is very interesting that most of the images of people in queues and empty shops are from this time.

Gorbachev did not implement Chinese style reforms. And the Chinese were wise enough to first test them in very small and controlled conditions, notably their special economic zones. Gorbachev's economic policies were something else entirely.

The USSR did need reforms but they could still have maintained their system and did not need to go down the path as extreme as complete economic liberalisation.

The narratives like to portray the Soviet Union as doomed from the start but the collapse was not inenivtable. In reality it was the failure of the Soviet political class and their mismanagement of the economy. If there had been wiser leadership and more foresight I think the Soviet Union could have survived till today.

Rugoz wrote:
I suppose you have read this already? I only provided a link to the slides in my previous post.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... Gaidar.pdf


The article analyses economic problems in the Soviet Union. But none of these problems were insurmountable.
#14859454
Political Interest wrote:Yes, I believe it. The problems did not appear until Gorbachev and his faction started implementing liberal reforms. This allowed all of the problems that were kept silent to be voiced openly. And it allowed regional nationalism to grow and express itself.

There were growing economic problems which needed to be dealt with but they were still tolerable in the early 1980s. After this the economic reforms created massive problems. And it is very interesting that most of the images of people in queues and empty shops are from this time.

Gorbachev did not implement Chinese style reforms. And the Chinese were wise enough to first test them in very small and controlled conditions, notably their special economic zones. Gorbachev's economic policies were something else entirely.

The USSR did need reforms but they could still have maintained their system and did not need to go down the path as extreme as complete economic liberalisation.

The narratives like to portray the Soviet Union as doomed from the start but the collapse was not inenivtable. In reality it was the failure of the Soviet political class and their mismanagement of the economy. If there had been wiser leadership and more foresight I think the Soviet Union could have survived till today.


The SU was doomed from the start like every system based on a rigid ideology. Power always corrupts and to base a system on "wise leadership" is very naive because no regime can be wise all the time. The lack of transparency doomed the system from the beginning. Thus, Gorbachev was right, but all-out reform along Western lines could not have worked, as was shown under Yeltsin.

The comparison with China is wrong. The Chinese always wanted to modernize industry (or the economy) but never the political system. The Russians reformed the political system in the belief that a transparent system along Western lines would automatically produce a prosperous economy like in the West. The SU collapsed because its leaders had lost faith in the system. They could see that Western economies worked much better. The final nail in the SU coffin was Chernobyl, were SU citizens were subjected to high doses of radiation for weeks because the system could not admit it had failed. The systematic failure in the system prompted the need for transparency.

I studied Chinese when Deng first set out to modernize China in the 70s. The general opinion at the time was that without liberalizing the political system, China would not be able to modernize its industry/economy. The economic success of China has proven that wrong; however, China has still to prove that it can be a technological leader while the intellectual life in the country is suppressed by its political system. Modern societies are knowledge-based societies, where innovation and the free flow of knowledge is the most important commodity. It could well be that China can only develop so far and then start to stagnate.
#14859778
Brexit, the ministers, the professor and the spy: how Russia pulls strings in UK

[...]
Did Johnson know of Elliott’s [former Vote Leave campaign manager] connections to a Russian operative? Probably – because he also knew Nalobin. They are photographed at Russian embassy events together. Did the British intelligence services? An intelligence source told the Observer of “enormous sensitivity” around any investigation of politicians. And Elliott was not an MP, but in 2016 he did hold an official position – designated by an official body, the Electoral Commission. Was his relationship to Nalobin flagged by the security services? If so, by whom, to who? If not, why not?

Will the FBI’s revelations last week finally shine some light on Russia’s relationship with Britain? And if so, what else will we find out? Because it is clear that the relationships and meetings the Observer has uncovered between Papadopoulos, Mifsud and British ministers are likely to be the tip of the iceberg.
[...]
Bill Browder, an Anglo-American businessman who is leading a global campaign for a “Magnitsky Act” – aimed at punishing Russia for the murder of his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, in Moscow in 2009 – said he was unsurprised by Britain’s role.

“London is one of the main outposts for Russian financial and political influence programmes in the west. It’s floating on a tide of dirty money. All the oligarchs have bases there. They all have homes. All the professional service firms are in London – lawyers, investigations agencies – all running private influence ops on behalf of the oligarchs who are working on behalf of Putin. There’s a huge reluctance in Britain to strangle the golden goose. Because a lot of people very close the centre of power are financially benefiting.”

The question is who? And how? Speaking to the Observer about the inquiry into the sources of funds for his Leave.EU campaign, Banks complained about the focus on him. “There should be an inquiry into all the campaigns, not just us.” And later: “What about Vote Leave?”


The British are a very tolerant people, especially when it comes to the backroom dealings of their politicians. If Mueller doesn't come up with something in the US, I guess the British prefer not to know.
#14860962
foxdemon wrote:So democracy as it exists in the West drives conflict. It also creates a need for PC cod’s wallop to further justify to the plebs as to why Western values are so super to everyone else and why regime change or similar violations of sovereignty is so necessary in country X.

The contemporary Western liberal democratic system is uncompromising and destructive. But what else should one expect from a system that the ultimate expression of the liberal bourgeoisie’s ruthless quest for wealth and status.

I don’t it is just the case that the West and Russia can’t get along. Without reformation, I don’t think the West can get along with anyone.


You presumed all conflicts are bad. I think only uncontrolled and uncivilized conflicts are bad.

Western democracy-freedom-welfare system has its flaws, but its greatest benefit to the people is probably that they don't have to think about overthrowing the government all the time, if and when the government starts to eat up everything (as in China's case and their treatment to Hong Kong). You cannot simply denounce this into "ultimate expression of the liberal bourgeoisie’s ruthless quest for wealth and status", unless you think our quest for social fairness and safety is unreasonable and ruthless itself.
#14861756
Patrickov wrote:You presumed all conflicts are bad. I think only uncontrolled and uncivilized conflicts are bad.



No I don’t.

Western democracy-freedom-welfare system has its flaws, but its greatest benefit to the people is probably that they don't have to think about overthrowing the government all the time, if and when the government starts to eat up everything (as in China's case and their treatment to Hong Kong). You cannot simply denounce this into "ultimate expression of the liberal bourgeoisie’s ruthless quest for wealth and status", unless you think our quest for social fairness and safety is unreasonable and ruthless itself.


Note Western societies aren’t pure liberal. Most progress for the broader community came from popular efforts to secure public education, labour rights, etc. that was a leftwing working class effort. Today the liberal bourgeoisie is in the ascendency. The fear is that they will return the West to 19th capitalism if they go unchallenged.

We are definitely starting to think about overthrowing the political status quo. In recent decades the liberal elite have become insufferably controlling. Democracy does present the opportunity of doing so without arms. We shall see.

I wouldn’t make such great a distinction between the rulers of communist China and contemporary Western political elites. They are slowly but surely moving toward a consensus. Certainly Xi had a wonderful time at Davos this year.
#14861794
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Putin is also responsible for the Catalonia mess and I read yesterday that he will be responsible for Scottish independence if it ever happens.

The west has a lot to learn from Putin who seemingly with very little effort installed his preferred president in the US, brought about Brexit, a severe crisis in Spain and a surge in populism all over Europe. He's a force of nature.

That is of course nonsense and insofar your persiflage hits the point.
I cannot help but to feel reminded to the vast exaggerated estimates of soviet military force in the cold war.
There we had two incompatible visions of how to organise societies.
And this antagonism has not really vanished. Russia remained in large politically a pre modern state of clan structures. A back fall to such a non formal way of rule could be indicated by Trump. So here an common line can be found, probably not in the case of Brexit.
It would be humiliating for a British to blame Russia.
For US-citizens may be less. They are grown up with the paranoia of Russian subversion and at the same time more vulnerable to clan structures, lets call it mafia.

But we should not overlook the fact: Putin is interested to split Europe and has some influence to do so. Especially in situations of watersheds, which from time to time occur.
#14861814
hartmut wrote:That is of course nonsense and insofar your persiflage hits the point.
I cannot help but to feel reminded to the vast exaggerated estimates of soviet military force in the cold war.
There we had two incompatible visions of how to organise societies.

I'm not aware of any vastly exaggerated estimates. Can you point me to a source on this?

hartmut wrote:And this antagonism has not really vanished. Russia remained in large politically a pre modern state of clan structures. A back fall to such a non formal way of rule could be indicated by Trump. So here an common line can be found, probably not in the case of Brexit.
It would be humiliating for a British to blame Russia.
For US-citizens may be less. They are grown up with the paranoia of Russian subversion and at the same time more vulnerable to clan structures, lets call it mafia.

But we should not overlook the fact: Putin is interested to split Europe and has some influence to do so. Especially in situations of watersheds, which from time to time occur.

Russia certainly has its own agenda and it's probably also fair to say that some of this agenda was/is influenced by western actions towards Russia.

That said, every country will try to influence other countries, just like with few exceptions - e.g. US/UK - every country spies on other countries no matter how closely allied they are. The only question is the extend of these activities, which is largely dependent on a country's capabilities and just how brazen it dares to be. I have always maintained in response to complaints about western ideological interference that all societies must have some resilience to this. As far as I can tell, Russia hasn't crossed the line yet. If we can't tolerate Russian online trolls spreading fake news then there's something seriously wrong with our societies and if Russia's attempt at influencing Europe justifies the current frenzy then we can't really complain about the frenzy in some Eastern European countries about George Soros either.

I think it's pretty obvious that much of this Putin focus is motivated by the left's unwillingness to accept democratic decisions, whether it's the Brexit referendum, Trump's election or the rise of right-wing populists across Europe. These attempts to delegitimise elections and referenda are far more worrisome in my view than anything Putin has done or is able to do and make the left the greatest danger to democracy in the west today.
#14861925
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm not aware of any vastly exaggerated estimates. Can you point me to a source on this?
....

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/defa ... ACFB01.pdf - Mastny Vojtech
Page 37: "Whatever Moscow's perceptions and plans, they hardly warranted NATO's dire
estimates of “Soviet Strength and Capabilities,” compiled annually since 1951 from mainly
US and British intelligence sources.144 These credited the Soviet army of supposedly 175
combat-ready divisions with the capacity to perform superhuman feats: massive surprise
assaults launched simultaneously against Western Europe and Scandinavia, the British Isles
and the Balkans, Italy and Turkey, the Near and Middle East, even Canada and the United
States, particularly Alaska and the Aleutian Islands―all this while retaining enough reserve
to defend the home territory."
Other sources show similar threat-inflations.
I think this is widely acknowledged
#14862286
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:..
I think it's pretty obvious that much of this Putin focus is motivated by the left's unwillingness to accept democratic decisions, whether it's the Brexit referendum, Trump's election or the rise of right-wing populists across Europe. These attempts to delegitimise elections and referenda are far more worrisome in my view than anything Putin has done or is able to do and make the left the greatest danger to democracy in the west today.

Now I'd like to ask you for a favour.
How do you define "the left", which in your perception obviously poses the "greatest danger to democracy in the west today"?
#14862308
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I mean left liberals or progressives.

Excuse me, that is not a definition.
You can pack anything into it,
except of the far-right, which is neither liberal nor progressive.
So the far-right is the only force that does not pose a severe danger to freedom an democracy?
#14862537
hartmut wrote:Excuse me, that is not a definition.
You can pack anything into it,
except of the far-right, which is neither liberal nor progressive.
So the far-right is the only force that does not pose a severe danger to freedom an democracy?



It seems clear who she is talking about. I think there is much besides the Far-right that would be excluded from the definition of liberal left progressive bourgeoisie politics.

But this idea of yours about freedom and democracy, could you explain that? And why is it worth protecting?
#14863254
foxdemon wrote:It seems clear who she is talking about. I think there is much besides the Far-right that would be excluded from the definition of liberal left progressive bourgeoisie politics.
...

I didn't catch that.
But let us take that as definition for the group that allegedly poses the greatest danger to current democracy.
Why?
... I simply do not understand and by that way it lacks plausibility in my mind.
Maybe Kaiserschmarrn will clarify my mist.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:.... the left the greatest danger to democracy in the west today.
#14863634
hartmut wrote:I didn't catch that.
But let us take that as definition for the group that allegedly poses the greatest danger to current democracy.
Why?
... I simply do not understand and by that way it lacks plausibility in my mind.
Maybe Kaiserschmarrn will clarify my mist.

I consider the liberal right a bulwark against antidemocratic forces. This used to be the case for the liberal left too, but that's no longer the case for the reasons I mentioned in the post you first responded to:
I think it's pretty obvious that much of this Putin focus is motivated by the left's unwillingness to accept democratic decisions, whether it's the Brexit referendum, Trump's election or the rise of right-wing populists across Europe. These attempts to delegitimise elections and referenda are far more worrisome in my view than anything Putin has done or is able to do and make the left the greatest danger to democracy in the west today.
#14864302
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I consider the liberal right a bulwark against antidemocratic forces. ...

I see the difference in our ideas about things.
For me it stretches the imagination too much to fancy a "right" that is "liberal".
I tend to regard that combination as an oxymoron, because I do not find any historic example for such.
#14864319
hartmut wrote:I see the difference in our ideas about things.
For me it stretches the imagination too much to fancy a "right" that is "liberal".
I tend to regard that combination as an oxymoron, because I do not find any historic example for such.

You can call them classical liberals if you wish. I'm not too keen to quibble about labels.
#14864324
Russia is in a strange position right now, it is rediscovering itself after years of "Workers Revolution" and pursuit of Communist vision. Hostilities grow between the what now is know as the "West", or basically a grand alliance of coalition of nations lead by America. But there are complex reasons for the rise of this conflict, that which seemed to be forgotten.

I'm also of the same option as Potemkin, 90s was a time missed for true peace to be restored. I doubt centuries are needed for another opportunity to arise though.

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]