Britain's response to Russia

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So this report suggests that there is £133bn of hot Russian money in the UK
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... 2015-2.pdf

Seize the £133bn, use half to pay off the EU, use the other half to go someway to meeting the bus pledge on the NHS, Botster is put in a quandary, everyone's a winner.

this may or maybot be entirely serious

And what about the massive hole when everybody else pulls out there dodgy money?

That’ll be fine because according to cycleclinic Britain’s economy is bigger than that of the galaxy so it’s sorted. And you will got rid of of all those immigrants he doesn’t like so everyone will have 4 jobs each and no benefits being claimed.

And Britain will have the biggliest Bestest army in the world so no one will pick on you,

Sorted, innit.

robert88

"according to cycleclinic Britain’s economy is bigger than that of the galaxy"

..cos our roads have more black holes?

rick_chasey

For those who confuse GDP with military might.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=mpet20

Need to remember Russia has re-orientated its economy around its military industrial complex.

So the proportion of GDP spent on military is 'uge compared to your average NATO member.

Basically, Russia chooses guns over butter, and mainlines the propaganda into every orifice to make sure people think this is worthwhile, or at least, not so bad that it's worth risking losing your livelihood for.

Matthewfalle

Robert88 wrote:

"according to cycleclinic Britain’s economy is bigger than that of the galaxy"

..cos our roads have more black holes?

Matthewfalle

If the stuff the British army gets is so good as per cycleclinc, why do we all buy our own kit?

Just wonderin' like.

Matthewfalle

And while we are on he subject, no, I don't fancy picking a fight with North Korea or China either.

imposter2.0

thecycleclinic wrote:

Many of russia's planes for example are transport aircraft the number of fighters/attack and bombers is smaller. For example about 3/4's of the there fighter/attack aircraft date from 1970's/80's.

A bit like the USAF then. The mainstays of their fighter/attack fleet are still the F15 and F16 - both of which were designed in the late 60s.

Matthewfalle

Imposter wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Many of russia's planes for example are transport aircraft the number of fighters/attack and bombers is smaller. For example about 3/4's of the there fighter/attack aircraft date from 1970's/80's.

A bit like the USAF then. The mainstays of their fighter/attack fleet are still the F15 and F16 - both of which were designed in the late 60s.

Much like britains then.

rick_chasey

War between nuclear powers is redundant because Nukes, surely?

Difficult for either side to avoid MAD.

Matthewfalle

Depends if it's an official war or unofficial war

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Depends if it's an official war or unofficial war

Using planes sounds pretty official to me.

It’s not flagless goons attacking places.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

War between nuclear powers is redundant because Nukes, surely?

Difficult for either side to avoid MAD.

Which is why we all fight proxy wars now, instead...

orraloon

When do get an announcement of the UK equivalent of US special investigator Mueller to look into Russian involvement in the 2016 EU referendum? Those disinformation bots were rife.

Matthewfalle

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

War between nuclear powers is redundant because Nukes, surely?

Difficult for either side to avoid MAD.

Which is why we all fight proxy wars now, instead...

Exactly.

rick_chasey

orraloon wrote:

When do get an announcement of the UK equivalent of US special investigator Mueller to look into Russian involvement in the 2016 EU referendum? Those disinformation bots were rife.

Well, there's a question around if it matters.

If lots of bots persuaded people to actually think Brexit was good by lying, surely that's still "will of the people" and all of that?

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

orraloon wrote:

When do get an announcement of the UK equivalent of US special investigator Mueller to look into Russian involvement in the 2016 EU referendum? Those disinformation bots were rife.

Well, there's a question around if it matters.

If lots of bots persuaded people to actually think Brexit was good by lying, surely that's still "will of the people" and all of that?

Read that back, Rick - and then give yourself a hard slap...

rick_chasey

You get what I'm saying, right?

The right to an opinion and a political persuasion, however wrongly informed, however stupid, is pretty vital to democracy.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Depends if it's an official war or unofficial war

Using planes sounds pretty official to me.

It’s not flagless goons attacking places.

No - that's acting in support of x,y,z.

It's not an official or unofficial war at all. Very, very different my learned friend.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get what I'm saying, right?

The right to an opinion and a political persuasion, however wrongly informed, however stupid, is pretty vital to democracy.

Not when that misinformation has come from a third which is deliberately and malevolently intending to de-stabilise another sovereign nation. Interference by a third party country in a legitimate election or referendum is against international law.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get what I'm saying, right?

The right to an opinion and a political persuasion, however wrongly informed, however stupid, is pretty vital to democracy.

Even though it doesn't reverse the result, it matters for the same reasons as it matters in the US. If there are no consequences for those that participated in it or for those that knowingly allowed it to happen - it definitely happens again.

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get what I'm saying, right?

The right to an opinion and a political persuasion, however wrongly informed, however stupid, is pretty vital to democracy.

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get what I'm saying, right?

The right to an opinion and a political persuasion, however wrongly informed, however stupid, is pretty vital to democracy.

Not when that misinformation has come from a third which is deliberately and malevolently intending to de-stabilise another sovereign nation. Interference by a third party country in a legitimate election or referendum is against international law.

Yeah fine but that means nothing to the UK result does it?

You can#t start testing for where people got their info from.

rick_chasey

In the modern world the answer isn't to ban nations from disseminating false information in other countries.

You can't stop that. You need to credibly and easily discredit the false information in a way that stops people being persuaded by the false facts.

That also means giving the right regulatory space for good journalism that is both free and open but not able to publish evidently false information (both on paper and online) that regulation needs to be crafted in a way to respect and maintain the easiness to criticise any part of its society.

It's not an easy balance but that ought to be the focus.

pblakeney

The majority of people no longer read/watch "proper" journalism.
They much prefer being presented with their own opinions. Easy work for bots.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah fine but that means nothing to the UK result does it?

You can#t start testing for where people got their info from.

Of course you can - that's pretty much what one of the threads of Mueller's investigation is doing right now. As for the UK result - if it shows that the UK result was 'unsafe', then it pretty much invalidates it. What UK Gov then chooses to do with that information is another matter entirely..

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah fine but that means nothing to the UK result does it?

You can#t start testing for where people got their info from.

Of course you can - that's pretty much what one of the threads of Mueller's investigation is doing right now. As for the UK result - if it shows that the UK result was 'unsafe', then it pretty much invalidates it. What UK Gov chooses to do with that information is another matter entirely..

Fairly so no gov't can be in a position to decide what facts are valid and which aren't. That's soviet style control. A gov't can't dictate where people get their information from and what that information is.

Mueller is seeing if Trump et al committed federal offences.

Not the same as deciding which opinions are valid and which aren't.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

If the stuff the British army gets is so good as per cycleclinc, why do we all buy our own kit?

Just wonderin' like.

I don't think that's what he was saying. Russia has roughly half the GDP of the UK, but spends 5.4% of GDP on the military to our 1.8%. I think he was just saying that if we spent as much as they do we might be on a more level footing militarily. I don't think he was saying it was a likely scenario.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mueller is seeing if Trump et al committed federal offences.

Including whether he colluded with the Russian state, Cambridge Analytica and others in order to mislead the US electorate.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not the same as deciding which opinions are valid and which aren't.

As I said earlier, a campaign of misinformation (if proven) instigated by a third party state with the aim of unfairly influencing the outcome of a legally-held election is a contravention of international law. Not sure how many more times this needs to be said...

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

As I said earlier, a campaign of misinformation (if proven) instigated by a third party state with the aim of unfairly influencing the outcome of a legally-held election is a contravention of international law. Not sure how many more times this needs to be said...

So what?

In practice, what does this mean?

Having a state body in the UK decide which opinion is right and which isn't workable.

Having a state body in the UK decide what opinions and 'facts' are allowed to be publishable does not work in conjunction with a free press and right to free speech.

How do you intend to square the circle between the right to have an opinion and stopping foreign states trying to persuade UK voters to vote a certain way?

You can't do it, as information doesn't have to pass through borders.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

War between nuclear powers is redundant because Nukes, surely?

Difficult for either side to avoid MAD.

In a perfectly rational world, that would certainly be the case. However, as I posted in another thread, the world has come perilously close to nuclear war in the mere 7 decades that we have had these weapons. How many times can we step up to that line without crossing it?

finchy

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

If the stuff the British army gets is so good as per cycleclinc, why do we all buy our own kit?

Just wonderin' like.

I don't think that's what he was saying. Russia has roughly half the GDP of the UK, but spends 5.4% of GDP on the military to our 1.8%. I think he was just saying that if we spent as much as they do we might be on a more level footing militarily. I don't think he was saying it was a likely scenario.

What is the quality of our military kit, compared to what the Russkies have? And what about (economic and industrial) ability to replenish stocks and innovate quickly, supply troops in distant conflict zones, quality of troops, etc.?

I don't have a clue what the answers are to these questions, and I'm pretty sure that Russia would win on a neutral battlefield, but I just wonder how large the difference in military capabilities between the 2 countries really is.