Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The election has been meddled with at several levels.

1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)

But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.

What did mentioning Trump add to this, beyond opening a door to lock-ville?

To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.

Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
Of course, but now we are in 2018. And just because some country that doesn't even exist anymore did someting wrong and bad 40 years ago, doesn't mean that Russia did it.
- they have no motive

The murdered agent previously flipped on Russia, and revealed the identities of possibly up to 300 Russian agents working abroad. Killing him to discourage other possible agents is an obvious motive.

Pretending this doesn't exist is absurd denialism. Don't waste people's time with that crap.

Why wait 10 years then? If it's about showing agents what happen if you flip to the other side, why dont assassinate him right away? It doesn't come of as show of force if it takes 10 years for the blow to strike!

Take it or leave it, but the argument is being made by some experts that this was specifically done for the Russian elections to generate a higher turnout for Putin. In manufacturing an international crisis by killing a 'traitor' (which is good PR to kill), Putin could use the West attacking 'innocent' Russia (while state media is nudging and winking its hardest) to boost turnout foŕ him. Putin wanted a big mandate again, in part because these elections were basically rubberstamping his position and it looks terrible if only 50% shows up to stamp it. It seems the recent crisis might have helped him get his biggest 'win' yet (well depending on the amount of fraud).

But according to all western outlets the Russian election is a big sham, why manufacture an international crisis to boost yourself in a election that you are going to fake anyway?

I think I'm gonna have to leave it

Well it kinda is because the state media support Putin and there is a host of other issues. But that isn't exactly the point. Yes Putin couldn't realistically lose, but he could win with an embarrasingly small turnout. Which in turn shows less support for Putin from the public, which is terrible for his image. Think of it as the Chinese version of parliament, it still takes all the big decisions, even if its just for show really. That's not to please the West, its a show put on for the domestic audience. While Putin couldn't lose, he still wants an election that is as fair as possible even though he has a finger on the scale. Why? Because its just good for his domestic image if he doesn't have to win by just stuffing ballot boxes, not only that, but he could claim a public mandate.

Putin could really stop pretending, but why would he? Its better with a veneer of honesty than just sham elections. Even the worst dictators care about public opinions. Hell, the Kim family leaders got 'elected'.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

But according to all western outlets the Russian election is a big sham, why manufacture an international crisis to boost yourself in a election that you are going to fake anyway?

I think I'm gonna have to leave it

No point in rigging an election if there is a revolution. Even the harshest dictator has to have some way of controlling people. Some people will be controlled through fear, but you always need some that will believe you have legitimacy. Even the Kim family have propaganda promoting them and demonising the rest of the world and they have no real elections and rule with absolute power.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.

Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.

Ok, we all know i'm not a Trump supporter, but putting him on the same page as Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte is just beyond ridiculous. And quite frankly I find your insinuation that our nations election system is nothing more then a plaything like those are, to be highly insulting.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.

Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.

Ok, we all know i'm not a Trump supporter, but putting him on the same page as Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte is just beyond ridiculous. And quite frankly I find your insinuation that our nations election system is nothing more then a plaything like those are, to be highly insulting.

I don't think Killkrazy meant it like that. I think he meant more that certain types of political leaders always put on shows for their base, regardless if it would help the foreign/domestic policy of a country overall. He didn't seem to imply anything against the US electoral system, just in how certain leaders put up a show.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To show that Putin is not unique as a world leader who has to satisfy a political support base.

Erdogan and Duterte are also good examples.

Ok, we all know i'm not a Trump supporter, but putting him on the same page as Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte is just beyond ridiculous. And quite frankly I find your insinuation that our nations election system is nothing more then a plaything like those are, to be highly insulting.

I don't think Killkrazy meant it like that. I think he meant more that certain types of political leaders always put on shows for their base, regardless if it would help the foreign/domestic policy of a country overall. He didn't seem to imply anything against the US electoral system, just in how certain leaders put up a show.

So instead of comparing Putin to a real tin-pot dictator, like he later did, he as a Moderator, opened the door to US politics, getting a jab in, knowing we can't go any further into the discussion.

DELETED

I didn't mean Trump is a tin-pot dictator. It's only that his was the first name that came into my mind when I thought about national leaders playing to a particular set of their population.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't mean Trump is a tin-pot dictator. It's only that his was the first name that came into my mind when I thought about national leaders playing to a particular set of their population.

While that may be true, as your fellow mods informed me, any mention of US politics AT ALL is an unforgivable and immediate auto lock. Even if it would be a relatively minor reference, such as mentioning that Russia's world wide meddling in elections was being unmasked in a series of subpoena's from the Mueller investigation. That was immediately flagged as US politics because of the origin of the information, not it's actual content.

MODERATOR, BAN THY SELF!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The election has been meddled with at several levels.

1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)

But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.

No. This election was totally under controle with hundreds of assessors from all over the world and cameras
There were several candidates.
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.

In the last couple of years, in France, which has, to my knowledge, never been under suspiscions of frauds we had:
Ballot stuffing
An unprecedented amount of insignifiant candidates (11 candiates for the last election, some who didn't even made 2%)
The favourite candidates lost their immunity or came under investigation 1 month before the election...

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)

Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
There isn't even cameras watching for ballot stuffing in France ! We can't even know it if it happened...
My president got about 65%, I am not surprised someone as Putin got 70%.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate russia, but try to think by yourselves and WAIT.FOR.THE.PROOF (if they really have any, they will show us, one day).

 godardc wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The election has been meddled with at several levels.

1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)

But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.

No. This election was totally under controle with hundreds of assessors from all over the world and cameras
There were several candidates.
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.

In the last couple of years, in France, which has, to my knowledge, never been under suspiscions of frauds we had:
Ballot stuffing
An unprecedented amount of insignifiant candidates (11 candiates for the last election, some who didn't even made 2%)
The favourite candidates lost their immunity or came under investigation 1 month before the election...

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)

Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
There isn't even cameras watching for ballot stuffing in France ! We can't even know it if it happened...
My president got about 65%, I am not surprised someone as Putin got 70%.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate russia, but try to think by yourselves !

You should take your own advice and think things over before you post. Any opponent has to get tacit approval by Putin to run. Meanwhile Putin shuts down the main opposition and has almost full control over the media to glorify him while demolishing his opponents. He gets 70% because 1/3rd of Russians don't even bother showing up and his opponents are as viable as electing toddlers. Its delusional to think France and the US don't do it better.

Those hundreds of foreign assessors? Worthless, as they were handpicked by the Russian government aka Putin. The only opinion that matters is that of the observers of the OSCE:
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/375661

...Michael Georg Link, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “But where the legal framework restricts many fundamental freedoms and the outcome is not in doubt, elections almost lose their purpose..."

Edit: Not constructive.

 godardc wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The election has been meddled with at several levels.

1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)

But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.

No. This election was totally under controle with hundreds of assessors from all over the world and cameras
There were several candidates.
They were free to choose and they have chosen Putin.

In the last couple of years, in France, which has, to my knowledge, never been under suspiscions of frauds we had:
Ballot stuffing
An unprecedented amount of insignifiant candidates (11 candiates for the last election, some who didn't even made 2%)
The favourite candidates lost their immunity or came under investigation 1 month before the election...

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose
A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)

Am I saying our democracies are bad ? No, it is the «normal» way of a democracy, overall it is pretty good. But how could we judge the russian for something we can't even do better ?
There isn't even cameras watching for ballot stuffing in France ! We can't even know it if it happened...
My president got about 65%, I am not surprised someone as Putin got 70%.
Please, I know you have been brainwashed to hate russia, but try to think by yourselves and WAIT.FOR.THE.PROOF (if they really have any, they will show us, one day).

Explain this then:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pH7uXZQsyHI

Election fraud is rife in Russia. Observers are being intimidated and prevented from doing their jobs. There is all sorts of anomalies. The same cannot be said the UK or US. Other countries are not doing the same.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


I actually addressed this in the other thread, if you go and look. Ending up in the awkward situation of multi-threading a subject here, might be best to start confining to one. My fun idea was to start playing in the Ukraine. We could even have fun with cyber-attacks and suchlike heading back in their direction. As Putin is so wonderfully demonstrating, there are many ways of subverting and undermining which don't involve actual declarations of war.

What does that actually achieve though by taking action on the soil of another country that likely isn't involved at all? Does that not strain relations with that country? Does that not just give justification to the nonsense that Russia pushes out that we are in some ways doing this ourselves. Does that not affect the Ukrainian population rather than impact . This all assumes that we are better at this than Russia. Whereas we likely have better technical standards we don't have the resources pushed into it that this type of action needs. We'd be trying to fight a battle that we will likely lose at a cyber level. On the other hand perhaps we could put investment into the east of the country to help bring forward the quality of people's lives, turning them against the idea that Russia is better? Win the hearts and minds rather than justify the misinformation that Russia inflicts on them.

As far as information gathering goes I expect our intelligence services to do exactly that. It's their job after all.

The destabilising regimes bit, we do have a habit of doing that as well. Thing is autocratic regimes in the Russian mould are much less vulnerable to these tactics than our own Western governments so why bother?

Actually if you ask any Russian and they will tell you we are already doing it, just by giving the opposition plenty of media airtime and articles of the kind they don't get in Russia proper. Funding political NGOs before Putin banned the practise, etc. Much like this older piece says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/07/21/did-the-united-states-interfere-in-russian-elections/?utm_term=.bb1f98030780

In short, when Putin says "fake news" most of his constituency believes him. They don't play by the same rules as the West.

tl;dr: Russia is not a democracy.

Can we stop repeating ourselves now?

While I've no doubt there's plenty of election fraud in Russia, and while I'm sure Putin has his share of opponents, [Doesn't every politican?] I've not actually seen any real evidence to suggest that given a fair election the Russians wouldn't just elect him anyway.

He seems geninuely popular, and geninuely the most electable of all the candidates. Sure his victory was manufactored, but it doesn't seem particularly necessary it is.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
While I've no doubt there's plenty of election fraud in Russia, and while I'm sure Putin has his share of opponents, [Doesn't every politican?] I've not actually seen any real evidence to suggest that given a fair election the Russians wouldn't just elect him anyway.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that Mnangagwa is the best thing since sliced bread in Western media. But most of it is based upon what a few journalists can learn by skimming wikipedia and doing a few google searches for articles other clueless journalists have written.

The sad fact is that in countries where Western media is not generally welcomed, strictly controlled, and somewhat culturally different to the locals, it tends to have serious methodological issues in sourcing accurate material. The BBC, for example, is reduced to quizzing a bare handful of random people on the subject of 'Do you like Putin?' when writing articles on it. It's not exactly statistically solid or indicative of...well, anything really. We do alright when it comes to places that all speak the same language, or have considerable direct links with us, but the minute you need a story from Mongolia, or Tajikistan, or Botswana, there's not much for the journalists to work from.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
While I've no doubt there's plenty of election fraud in Russia, and while I'm sure Putin has his share of opponents,.

Who are conveniently exiled, jailed, prohibited from running, or dead.

I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.

 Steve steveson wrote:

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose

I mean, we didn't. There was no tampering of votes, no votestuffing, nothing. What we had was the classic "one candidate got more votes than the other.

A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)

Annoying, sure, but that's because we don't have a popular vote system. Now critique that system all you want (I sure as hell do) but that's very dissimilar to voter fraud.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

In America you had the democrat fraud that made Sanders loose

I mean, we didn't. There was no tampering of votes, no votestuffing, nothing. What we had was the classic "one candidate got more votes than the other.

A president elected with less popular vote than its opposant (not the first time)

Annoying, sure, but that's because we don't have a popular vote system. Now critique that system all you want (I sure as hell do) but that's very dissimilar to voter fraud.

That wasn’t me. I don’t want to get banned for talking about US politics, or people to think I would make comments like that.

 Orlanth wrote:
I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.

Partly true, but Putin doesn't need to rig elections because the government and state media destroy the chances of just any likely opponent themselves. Its a race that doesn't need running.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.

Partly true, but Putin doesn't need to rig elections because the government and state media destroy the chances of just any likely opponent themselves. Its a race that doesn't need running.

His victory was assured from the start. What wasn't assured was high voter turnout, and that's what most of the shady stuff was about. What is likely to be Putin's last election (he is getting older and not in as good health as before) couldn't be a meh vote with 50% of the voters showing up, and presto! It shows increased participation from the last time he was elected!

So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink, and people working in government jobs told to prove they voted by taking a selfie etc... but it didn't actually change who was elected. It just looked "better".

Spetulhu wrote:
So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink

aha, it was -20C or colder all over most part of Russia on the election day, no surprise ))) this thread is funny reading... such things as first hand experience, broader research or evidence only complicate things, divert attention from attitudes to facts and make world look too complex, so why bother when a few selected news outlets have already made it simple again...eh? )))

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I dont think Putin needs to rig elections to win.

Partly true, but Putin doesn't need to rig elections because the government and state media destroy the chances of just any likely opponent themselves. Its a race that doesn't need running.

His victory was assured from the start. What wasn't assured was high voter turnout, and that's what most of the shady stuff was about. What is likely to be Putin's last election (he is getting older and not in as good health as before) couldn't be a meh vote with 50% of the voters showing up, and presto! It shows increased participation from the last time he was elected!

So there was some sponsored transport to get people voting, and free food and drink, and people working in government jobs told to prove they voted by taking a selfie etc... but it didn't actually change who was elected. It just looked "better".

Yeah, turnout is mentioned by some as an argument for the nerve gas attack like I brought up last page.

To get back to the main topic, I was initially pleased that Russia had taken the proportionate response of expelling 23 British diplomats to match the 23 Russians chucked out by the UK.

Sadly, though they went beyond that and closed the British Council (a cultural and educational agency) and the consulate in St Petersburg.

This demands a proportionate response from the UK.

That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Japan prepares to execute up to 13 members of Aum Shinrikyo cult

The notorious Tokyo underground nerve gas attack happened in March 1995.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To get back to the main topic, I was initially pleased that Russia had taken the proportionate response of expelling 23 British diplomats to match the 23 Russians chucked out by the UK.

Sadly, though they went beyond that and closed the British Council (a cultural and educational agency) and the consulate in St Petersburg.

This demands a proportionate response from the UK.

That said, we still need to find a way to do business with Putin.

And therein lies the crux of the problem, and why things will never actually change. Our Government will huff and bluster and make indignant noises and headline grabbing moves like expelling Russian Diplomats, but at the end of the day the allure of Russian money is too strong and we'll return quietly to the status quo.

If Putin really is such a monster and Russia really is the threat that our Government is claiming them to be, then we should should put our money where our mouth is. Cut off diplomatic relations with Russia, close their Embassy, expel any Oligarchs in bed with Putin and put financial sanctions on Russian money passing through the City of London.

But we won't do any of that, because money is more important to us. Money speaks, not principles.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The election has been meddled with at several levels.

1. Plenty of opposition candidate who had no hope. The only viable candidate was prevented from running.
2. Completely biased coverage on state-controlled media.
3. Compulsory voting to boost turnout, when it seemed the only way to express opposition to Putin was to not vote.
4. Ballot stuffing. (See point 3.)

But remember, Putin like Trump, has his base of supporters who think he's good for Russia. They are people who applaud the murder of "traitors", and will have been pleased to see what happened to Scripal.

The only viable candidate was prevented from running? Which one? Navalny? Navalny is a joke. He has barely any support in most of Russia. He is one of the only remaining politicians not under control of the secret services, for which he deserves respect, but he is harmless and that is why he is still around. There never were any viable candidates beside Putin. The only ones who ever manage to get a mentionable share of the votes are the communists, and even their share is insignificant next to Putin. Beyond Putin and the communists, no other candidate has ever managed to score more than 10% of votes, so there really are no other viable candidates.

Also, regarding Navalny, I know the Western media loves him because he is against Putin, but if he were elected president he would not neccesarily be much better than Putin for the West. He isn't any less rabidly nationalistic than other candidates. That is just the nature of contemporary Russian society. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is not nationalist and anti-Western.

To be fair there is more to being a viable candidate than just voter share. Nobody gets the amount of 'free' and positive press that Putin does while not being harrased by the government. Its hard to really become a viable candidate when you're constantly demonized in the media and any attempt at grass roots building of support is being hunted down.

While it might be true that Putin is the best of the pack so to speak, its hard to independently assess that when the deck is so incredibly heavily stacked in his favor in the years up to the elections.