Britain's response to Russia

surrey_commuter

Imposter wrote:

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...

so what do if the Russians were merely repeating the rubbish spouted by Farage/Boris and effectively targeting it at impressionable people?

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think you're missing the point quite spectacularly, Rick. Deciding on the relative veracity of the information is not the point. The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes. Have a read on what the Electoral Commission and the OSCE does - and how/why it does it.

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think you're missing the point quite spectacularly, Rick. Deciding on the relative veracity of the information is not the point. The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes. Have a read on what the Electoral Commission and the OSCE does - and how/why it does it.

When you explain the entire practical process of how this ends up, i'll understand.

Right now, you're spouting a load of legal theory which I can't see having any practical implication.

Spell it out, because from where I'm sitting, it's all irrelevant in reality.

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think you're missing the point quite spectacularly, Rick. Deciding on the relative veracity of the information is not the point. The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes. Have a read on what the Electoral Commission and the OSCE does - and how/why it does it.

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Or are you going to conveniently ignore that?

Remainers really are getting desperate...

Matthewfalle

finchy wrote:

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.

l

It's massive in their favour. Looking at the kit in my immediate vicinity I can see none, apart from out trousers and shirts, that is either as issued or hasn't be bought privately. And we tend to not wear those trousers and shirts when doing stuff.

bompington

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Or are you going to conveniently ignore that?

Remainers really are getting desperate...

Well this certainly ticks all the Savushkina Street boxes...

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think you're missing the point quite spectacularly, Rick. Deciding on the relative veracity of the information is not the point. The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes. Have a read on what the Electoral Commission and the OSCE does - and how/why it does it.

When you explain the entire practical process of how this ends up, i'll understand.

Right now, you're spouting a load of legal theory which I can't see having any practical implication.

Spell it out, because from where I'm sitting, it's all irrelevant in reality.

Worst/best case scenario (depending on your viewpoint) = UK Gov decides that referendum result was illegally and/or unfairly influenced by external/foreign actors, with a consequence that the referendum result is declared void and re-run.

Previously mentioned external/foreign interests are penalised/sanctioned by UK Gov/UN/etc. Will that do?

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Dunno - tell me about that?

kingstongraham

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Dunno - tell me about that?

I think he means Obama coming over and saying that we would be at the back of the queue for any trade deals.

finchy

Matthewfalle wrote:

finchy wrote:

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.

l

It's massive in their favour. Looking at the kit in my immediate vicinity I can see none, apart from out trousers and shirts, that is either as issued or hasn't be bought privately. And we tend to not wear those trousers and shirts when doing stuff.

And how well equipped is the average Russian soldier?

imposter2.0

KingstonGraham wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Dunno - tell me about that?

I think he means Obama coming over and saying that we would be at the back of the queue for any trade deals.

Well let's hope he doesn't mean that - because that would be an absurd comparison if so..

imposter2.0

finchy wrote:

And how well equipped is the average Russian soldier?

Better equipped now than they were 10 years ago, but it's a moot point really, as the average Russian soldier probably couldn't afford to buy too much of their own/replacement kit anyway.

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Worst/best case scenario (depending on your viewpoint) = UK Gov decides that referendum result was illegally and/or unfairly influenced by external/foreign actors, with a consequence that the referendum result is declared void and re-run.

Previously mentioned external/foreign interests are penalised/sanctioned by UK Gov/UN/etc. Will that do?

You honestly think this is a credible scenario that might occur?

Come off it.

Why would a gov't declare their own victory was illegal?

Problem with elections and referendums is the victors are in charge once they're won.

Republicans aren't gonna give up the white house, regardless.

Tories and Brexiters won't give up their result either.

You're in fantasy land to think that this far in any gov't would declare a ref or an election result illegal.

finchy

Imposter wrote:

finchy wrote:

And how well equipped is the average Russian soldier?

Better equipped now than they were 10 years ago, but it's a moot point really, as the average Russian soldier probably couldn't afford to buy too much of their own/replacement kit anyway.

Yes, and they've spent the last decade playing catch up. I also have a lot of doubts about Russian ability to pay for a large war. They weren't too keen on launching a full-scale invasion of E. Ukraine, despite the fact that the West would almost certainly be unable to prevent it.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Worst/best case scenario (depending on your viewpoint) = UK Gov decides that referendum result was illegally and/or unfairly influenced by external/foreign actors, with a consequence that the referendum result is declared void and re-run.

Previously mentioned external/foreign interests are penalised/sanctioned by UK Gov/UN/etc. Will that do?

You honestly think this is a credible scenario that might occur?

Come off it.

Why would a gov't declare their own victory was illegal?

Problem with elections and referendums is the victors are in charge once they're won.

Republicans aren't gonna give up the white house, regardless.

Tories and Brexiters won't give up their result either.

You're in fantasy land to think that this far in any gov't would declare a ref or an election result illegal.

In case you missed it, I offered no view on its likelihood - I'm simply saying that is one potential consequence, assuming all of those things were to be proven.

Not sure why you think the referendum was a 'victory' for the government. That's not what referenda are for.

veronese68

Imposter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Dunno - tell me about that?

I think he means Obama coming over and saying that we would be at the back of the queue for any trade deals.

Well let's hope he doesn't mean that - because that would be an absurd comparison if so..

Have you ever read any of Coopsters posts before?

imposter2.0

Veronese68 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Dunno - tell me about that?

I think he means Obama coming over and saying that we would be at the back of the queue for any trade deals.

Well let's hope he doesn't mean that - because that would be an absurd comparison if so..

Have you ever read any of Coopsters posts before?

No, I don't think so - never heard of him, tbh..

veronese68

Imposter wrote:

No, I don't think so - never heard of him, tbh..

You have no idea how lucky you are.
You could plough through the brexit thread, but to be perfectly honest I wouldn't recommend it.

Matthewfalle

finchy wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

finchy wrote:

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.

l

It's massive in their favour. Looking at the kit in my immediate vicinity I can see none, apart from out trousers and shirts, that is either as issued or hasn't be bought privately. And we tend to not wear those trousers and shirts when doing stuff.

And how well equipped is the average Russian soldier?

Average bod - just as with a few better bits. And more of it.

rick_chasey

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Worst/best case scenario (depending on your viewpoint) = UK Gov decides that referendum result was illegally and/or unfairly influenced by external/foreign actors, with a consequence that the referendum result is declared void and re-run.

Previously mentioned external/foreign interests are penalised/sanctioned by UK Gov/UN/etc. Will that do?

You honestly think this is a credible scenario that might occur?

Come off it.

Why would a gov't declare their own victory was illegal?

Problem with elections and referendums is the victors are in charge once they're won.

Republicans aren't gonna give up the white house, regardless.

Tories and Brexiters won't give up their result either.

You're in fantasy land to think that this far in any gov't would declare a ref or an election result illegal.

In case you missed it, I offered no view on its likelihood - I'm simply saying that is one potential consequence, assuming all of those things were to be proven.

Not sure why you think the referendum was a 'victory' for the government. That's not what referenda are for.

It's unlikely enough to be irrelevant.

I'm talking practically.

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's unlikely enough to be irrelevant.

I'm talking practically.

Not sure what you mean - the above represents a practical process. How likely it is depends on what - if any evidence turns up to initiate it.

orraloon

This is worth a listen. Commentary from people who have some knowledge in the field, so Leave voters and botsters needn't bother.

https://www.acast.com/theeconomistasks/ ... onthewest-

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

finchy wrote:

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.

l

It's massive in their favour. Looking at the kit in my immediate vicinity I can see none, apart from out trousers and shirts, that is either as issued or hasn't be bought privately. And we tend to not wear those trousers and shirts when doing stuff.

I'd hazard a guess that generally speaking if one of our military personnel cops it in active service, the MoD doesn't pretend they never existed or suggest to their families that they've deserted when they are in fact decomposing in a Ukrainian ditch.

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Does your point include Obama, at the time POTUS, interfering in a third party country electoral process?

Dunno - tell me about that?

I think he means Obama coming over and saying that we would be at the back of the queue for any trade deals.

Well let's hope he doesn't mean that - because that would be an absurd comparison if so..

You said

Imposter wrote:

The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes.

That equally applies to what Obama said. Not that I believe in the conspiracy theories that you are implying!

Now your hypocrisy has been called out, you attempt to dismiss it.

For once Rick is talking sense on this subject which demonstrates just how wrong you are

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

You said

Imposter wrote:

The point is the interference of third party countries in another nation's electoral processes.

That equally applies to what Obama said. Not that I believe in the conspiracy theories that you are implying!

Now your hypocrisy has been called out, you attempt to dismiss it.

For once Rick is talking sense on this subject which demonstrates just how wrong you are

You think some public remarks from another country's political leader equates to state-sponsored interference designed to disrupt, influence and undermine the democratic process?

The difference is that Obama's remarks did not unduly affect the outcome of the Brexit vote, in the sense that the 'no' campaign still won. Russia's alleged campaign may well have done much more to help the 'no' campaign. They certainly weren't trying to maintain the status quo, that's for sure. If you're claiming that Obama 'interfered', then you would have to accept that practically every other leader of a free, democratic nation also said pretty much the same thing. What you are describinig is simply not 'interference' in the context that is being discussed.

Brilliant work though. I want some of whatever it is you are drinking - providing it's not flavoured with polonium or VX...

slowmart

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Rick , rather than frame this in the context of democracy and free will do you actually understand the enormity, complexity and Machiavellian nature of what was achieved ?

You’ve got datapoints from 50 million users which provide a granular detail of an individuals beliefs, preconceptions, and political bias. Feed false news stories into these individuals and steer the narrative to a polarisation of these beliefs which then get translated into votes.

The world has moved on immersirably from the ideals and concepts that gave birth to democracy. Legislation, law enforcement and indeed the understanding of what can be achieved by leveraging the individuals personality, beliefs, prejudices and fears is still in its infancy.

Time will tell if Russia was pulling the levers which swayed the UK referendum and helped Trump into the Whitehouse.

As an act against a perceived enemy, it’s weakened the 5th largest economy, bought uncertainty to established treaties and trade agreements in the West. Putin could have shaped the world stage for the next generation.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

Oh calm down. I'm sure some things could be better, but the way MF tells it, they're buying their own tanks on eBay.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Before you feel too hard done by, outside of the armed services, buying at least some of your own tools/kit is hardly unusual.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.
For me to put my life on the line for Queen and Country I'd expect the best tools for the job, and that my family would be looked after in unfortunate circumstances. Also explains why I never signed up.

Oh calm down. I'm sure some things could be better, but the way MF tells it, they're buying their own tanks on eBay.

I am calm. No reason not to be.
But then, I am not a "borrower". Named for a reason. And my life is not on the line.

rick_chasey

Slowmart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Rick , rather than frame this in the context of democracy and free will do you actually understand the enormity, complexity and Machiavellian nature of what was achieved ?

You’ve got datapoints from 50 million users which provide a granular detail of an individuals beliefs, preconceptions, and political bias. Feed false news stories into these individuals and steer the narrative to a polarisation of these beliefs which then get translated into votes.

The world has moved on immersirably from the ideals and concepts that gave birth to democracy. Legislation, law enforcement and indeed the understanding of what can be achieved by leveraging the individuals personality, beliefs, prejudices and fears is still in its infancy.

Time will tell if Russia was pulling the levers which swayed the UK referendum and helped Trump into the Whitehouse.

As an act against a perceived enemy, it’s weakened the 5th largest economy, bought uncertainty to established treaties and trade agreements in the West. Putin could have shaped the world stage for the next generation.

This is all very well but what is the solution?