The Putin/Trump friendship is largely invented by the media. For example when Putin supposedly called Trump 'brilliant' he used a Russian term that means 'bright colorful personality' not intelligent. Our media knows this but ran with the illusion of Putin admiring Trump because it serves domestic political talking points. Trump's whole platform of America First(tm) populist rhetoric would be detrimental to any agenda Russia has.

It seems to me that embarassing leaks are best distracted away from the political news cycle by manufacturing a sexy story about Russian interference instead of trying to spin the content of the leaks themselves.

I'm Russian, and I regularly follow Russian news. I can tell you two things.

One, coverage of Trump in Russian media (which is almost entirely government-owned or controlled) is generally positive, and that of Clinton is generally very negative. You can clearly see the political preferences they're trying to push.

And two, it's actually a fairly easy sell to the public, because it plays well into the "degenerate West" narrative that Russian propaganda has been using as one of its lynchpins for several years now. When Trump comes out and says that he's against political correctness and immigration, he becomes a part of that narrative, as some sort of valiant crusader against "degeneracy", and his popular support becomes a "proof" of its existence.

I didn't say there was friendship. Trump and his buddy and partner Phil Ruffin are also partners and buddies with ukrainian oligarch Onyshenko who at present is hiding out in Russia as ukrainian parliament voted to lift his immunity (as a parliament member) so he can be prosecuted for his various schemes. He is most likely one of the key pawns for Putin for having influence on Trump. So far only minor things came out relating to Paul Manafort, I am guessing closer to elections something major related to the above connection will come out.

such lies.

1.) Paul Manafort, Trump's previous manager, received a cash payment of more than $12 million from Pro-Russia party in Ukraine

2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.

3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical."

4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign.

5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on.

6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region.

7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama.

8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.

I love how this comment has been down voted, even though it's much more truthful than the parent comment (which misses many other points as described above.)

Which points were missed

>campaign ties to the Kremlin

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and...

>speeches in Moscow that benefit the Kremlin

https://www.quora.com/Who-paid-Bill-Clintons-2-5-million-com...

We can play this game all day. Both US major federal political parties are neck deep in Kremlin corruption and ties to each other. Trump has also never taken an 'anti-NATO' stance, he wants to shake down NATO countries for cash to pay for protection, and so did Dubya, who threatened my country into joining the Afghan military adventure with that whole 'you are with us or our enemy' speech.

The question is, is Russia trying to get Trump elected which is hard to believe since they enjoy a pretty good relationship with the Clintons, but who really knows I will concede. I'm also not buying the secret IOCs that "verify" state sanctioned involvement, they verify similar attackers, that use a Russian VPS.

You didn't even bother to refute the GP's points; rather, you go on some strange invective against both US political parties. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader of what this implies. (hint: it smells a lot like cheap vodka and balalaika on a polar bear)

I agree with your sentiment, but is Putin personally buddies with Trump, or is Trump's team just heavily invested in Russia?

The end result is basically the same, but I feel like the second is easier to prove (By your points)

Awesome compilation of facts. It's getting to the point that the only people who am ant see a Russia-Trump connection do so willingly.

> Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected?

That's not the only plausible interpretation of the intervention. A desire for weak (perhaps particularly in terms of international standing) US leader could lead to efforts to specifically weaken Clinton's standing and nothing against Trump if Trump was seen as either unlikely to win in any case or already weak (or both). Or, perhaps, the overt manipulation on behalf of Russia that favors Trump is, itself, an attack on Trump's standing, while the overt content leaked is an attack on Clinton's.

A desire for Trump to win is not necessary to explain Russian intervention of the type that is alleged and apparent here.

If I were Putin I would be mad at Clinton for punking me re: Gaddafi. Russia made a good-faith attempt to stop Libya from descending into total chaos and well, look where it got them.

I think it was a timely reminder to Putin that NATO has no interest in playing nice with Russia, and informed his actions in Ukraine and Syria.

I am obviously biased being from Ukraine but Putin is being active mostly because he perceives EU as being extremely weak and US President as weak so he has a window to act. If he received some serious level of resistance (not military) he would quickly back down, but he only receives very minor resistance which is interpreted as farther sign of west's weakness.

I'm not sure that is true. It's a popular theory, certainly, but another popular theory is that he genuinely believes in all that Third Rome, Russia as savior of the world pseudo-religious bullshit. With the guy being in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal, this is not something that we'll want to test experimentally.

USSR had a much more potent military and I don't remember US employing a strategy of yielding to that.

No, but US didn't openly engage Soviet forces anywhere, either. In proxy wars, it was always covert for either side (as in e.g. Vietnam or Afghanistan), or sometimes both (as in many places in Africa).

I specifically mentioned non military response.

Do you live in Ukraine now? What is the general mood in the different parts of the country? If you do live there I would like to read your opinions, there is so much spin and lies in the media (from both sides).

I moved to US a year ago, there is always spin in the media, so if I can help providing some useful information would be glad to do so.

There has actually been an unverified rumor, ostensibly from Putin's inner circle, that Putin was extremely spooked by Qaddafi's eventual fate (to remind, he was tortured and raped with a stick before being shot in the stomach and slowly bled to death).

And when the massive pro-democracy protests against electoral fraud in 2011 election started 2 months later, he started to take it as a personal threat. The rumor claims that this emotional response was a significant contribution to the course change (towards more authoritarianism) that followed.

Dirt on Trump? The dude's 70 years old and fucking rich, there's no way there is enough dirt only known to Putin that could manipulate him. If there was such a quantity of dirt, it would have leaked beyond Putin, and we'd have heard about it. The most enjoyable part of this whole election is seeing so many otherwise smart people losing their minds and trying to find any way to keep Trump from the White House, disbelieve in his legitimacy if he actually wins, or just plain deny reality.

Donald Trump Makes History With Zero Major Newspaper Endorsements

Historical & Groundbreaking Endorsements Compiled:

The Chicago Tribune endorsed a Non-Republican for only the 2nd time in 163-years by supporting Johnson

The Atlantic endorsed a Presidential candidate for only the 3rd time in 159-years by supporting Clinton

The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 148-years by supporting Clinton

Detroit News endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 143-years by supporting Johnson

The Arizona Republic endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 126-years by supporting Clinton

Philadelphia endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 108-years by supporting Clinton

The New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Johnson

The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Clinton

The Desert Sun endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 90-years by supporting Clinton

The Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 76-years by supporting Clinton

The Tulsa World refused to endorse a Republican or Presidential Candidate for the 1st time in 72-years

The Houston Chronicle endorsed a Democrat for only the 3rd time in 70-years by supporting Clinton

The Richmond-Times Dispatch endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 36-years by supporting Johnson

USA Today gave a endorsement/non-endorsement for the 1st time in 34-years by opposing Trump

The Dallas Voice endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 32-years by supporting Clinton

Wired endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 25-years by supporting Clinton

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-...

so everyone is stupid in your opinion?

Huh? I said otherwise smart people are losing their minds over this election, not that everyone is stupid. Your list underscores my overarching point though: there is incredible motivation from many parties and many parties with resources to see Trump fail, at every stage from the primaries to the GOP nomination to the eventual election in a month, that if there was real dirt on Trump that could make him dance like a puppet (or otherwise be manipulated, or tarnished so terribly), it's incredibly unlikely that such dirt would only be known to Putin.

This just proves to me it's the crooked Establishment and Elites vs Trump and the Middle Class, even if half of us will have to be dragged kicking and screaming 'racist!' and 'literally Hitler!' into our new Trump-built promised land.

These are great days we're living, bros.

Why do newspapers even have to endorse candidates at all? Isn't the idea of newspapers telling people how to think - and how to vote - somewhat Orwellian?

I'd much rather that people vote for Clinton because they made up their own mind and decided she was the better candidate, not because "well everybody told me to so I guess I better do what they say". That's scary.

Expressing an opinion is "Orwellian"? When you use words in such a manner they start to lose meaning. Maybe that already happened and led to your post.

No, I do not think it is a problem for any person or editorial body to share an opinion. I do not see it as a form of mind control to be exposed to other people's worldview. And Trump is exactly as hideous a human being as everyone has pointed out, besides being a deeply flawed candidate who is in over his head and has no capability to deliver on even a fraction of (what little) he has promised.

I started replying, but much of what I would have said is covered better by the USA Today post regarding their endorsement breaching their editorial ethics of neutrality:

"Endorsements might taint the objective reporting we were trying to do in the rest of the newspaper. Moreover, [USA Today founder Al Neuharth] felt it was elitist to assume we know better than everyone else when it comes to voting."

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/04/disendorsem...

wow, ever heard of freedom of speech? newspapers are free to express their own beliefs. you won't get that in Russia or China.

> Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him.

Or, you know, doesn't want WWIII, like the rest of us.

Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war?

And what bold advances has Russia made?

They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers.

They seized (bloodlessly I might add) Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base. I might also add that 'Maidan' was the 2nd western-sponsored 'revolution' in Ukraine in a decade.

Now Russia is defending a long-time ally in the middle east from western-backed terrorists.

Then there's also NATO advancing all around Russia, the various 'defensive' missile systems being installed by US-allied countries who happen to encircle Russia, etc...

> Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war?

The only one making bold advances is the US, and yes, Russia isn't yielding, and the US is making it a problem. But you're right, it is a deterrent to war - if a weak ruler like Yeltsin were still in power Russia would probably be in another dozen pieces right now, with wars raging in half of them...

Western imposed government that's precious you get a cookie from Kiselev. If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would have done so in the 90s.

Would it? MAD was still a thing back then. Hence the brouhaha over the missile shield...

Back then a major TV program crue unobstructed marched to the ICBM launch site and had a party there. The country was bankrupt if not for the western help it would have collapsed.

I heard (possibly tall) tales of Russian sniper rifles pointed at the president of Georgia at one point many years ago now.

>And what bold advances has Russia made? > They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers. > They seized Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base

wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting

You are spinning this.

A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work.

When this happened, the people of [what was then called] the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" voted in favor of leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed.

Ukraine as a country has only existed for 20 some years. Before that is was a loose territory of different regions. The East was mostly ethnic Russians, the West was mostly other groups. And Crimea was always Russian.

The majority of the force used in Crimea composed of Russian solders that stood outside the gates of Ukrainian military bases, blocking them from leaving, to carry out orders to stop the referendum... Which turned out to be over 95% in favor of rejoining Russia.

Ignoring all the bs in your post would you recognize the right of any of the Russian regions to vote for their independence? (as far as how things unrolled you just have to watch interviews with Igor Strelkov who hardly can be accused of pro western bias).

Facts are bs?

> would you recognize the right of any of the Russian regions to vote for their independence?

Has the Russia government been overthrown? When it is, lets talk then, because the answer will depend on the circumstances of the event.

BS is BS. Orange revolution rigged election and re-election during this time the president and parliament remained the same so no clue what you are talking about. 2012 rigged parliamentary election but people let it slide. The removal of Yanukovich from power constitutional majority of parliament (same members as under Yanukovich) voted to remove him. Your russian TV narrative is great but disconnected from reality.

USSR/Russian overthrows/subversions so many it's not even funny. From which year do you want to count? 1917 1920 1964 1991 1993 1996 2012

> A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work.

Perfect example of russian propaganda.

> leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed.

Crimea was part of Russian Federation _for longer than the US has existed_???

Dude, stop smoking whatever you're on.

> wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting

And which whole nation was conquered?

You're right, Putin shouldn't stand by idly as America builds a missile shield around Russia to negate their ability to launch nukes...

We already have a deterrent for war with Russia. Russia knows this, I think the US is forgetting it.

A lot of countries forget a lot of things US & other major nuclear powers conveniently forgot how they negotiated Ukraine to surrender worlds 3d largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for "security guarantees". US is acting prudently in building up missile shield around Russia since in the event of russia collapse who knows what will happen to their nuclear weapons.

I don't even think a missile shield is necessarily bad, but it is a little troubling to see the attitude of taking offense that Russia just doesn't do what it's told. Forgetting Russia is a superpower too.

Should other countries have a plan in case of USA collapse? At least our codes got upgraded from a string of 0s... But I imagine there are some foreign officials worried. Russia has started calling America "not-agreement-capable" after recent events in Syria and a UNSC meeting.

Russia can do whatever it wants in its jurisdiction.

But it cannot be allowed to dictate the bilateral terms between other countries. If Ukraine or Poland wants to be in NATO, it's not up to Russia to say "no". Especially given the histories of those countries, and Russia's role therein.

And that's basically what that "OMG NATO is surrounding Russia" thing boils down to.

"it's not up to Russia"

It is if they have the power to stop it. The whole "moral justification" part is for plebes like us. If powers feel threatened by the movements of other powers in neighboring countries, they will act[1]. How they spin it to the public is secondary.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Quarantin...

Which is why it is important to everyone else to stand together make sure that Russia doesn't have the power to stop it.

Sure but it didn't get them very far

Russia is not a super power and to be honest I am not totally sure even USSR ever was.

How are you defining a superpower such that Russia is not a member and maybe the USSR wasn't one?

I don't have a good definition but their ability to project power is/was greatly exaggerated.

There was worry with the collapse of the USSR that Russian nukes would be donated to terrorists. It was a very common theme in 90s fiction. It ended up not happening at all, in fact the only major nuclear proliferation since then has been from Pakistan to North Korea, which is not mentioned by the western media because Pakistan is a very important ally against the Soviets. Wait...

The worry was more then reasonable the lucky outcome of worst scenario not materializing is not an evidence that there was no risk.

Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. Those where Russian nukes stationed in the regions of Ukraine.

The Kremlin had operational control of all nukes pre and post the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

There was no negotiations required to get them back except for a procedural "note of record". They would have been taken by force if necessary.

Have fun with your powertrip Russia was one of the republics of USSR, so far Russia has one success story in taking something by force and most likely it will play out very similar to the fate of USSR.

One would have thought that the Russians would know this better than anybody after the USSR's collapse but military might is meaningless if you don't have the economic might to back it up.

Russia is little more than a petro state whose economic fortunes are almost completely related to the price of oil.

Putin should be focusing on broadening the Russian economic base but is instead engaging in stupid military endeavors that are only kidding Russia friends. The EU would love to trade with Russia but his European tinkering had made it impossible for them to do so. The US is obviously not a fan. Give it a few years and he'll probably piss off China too (or they'll find the US and European relationships more useful) and the Ryssians will have little more to do than reminisce about the time they annexed Crimea.

Well as things stand now Russia's GDP is less than GDP of NYC :) So how they still believe they can be a super power is beyond me.China is far from being Russia's ally they are using the current situation to take over Russia's resources and make Russia extremely dependent. It looks like the end game is peaceful return of the territories that Russia annexed from China or installation of puppet government at some point.

People die and kill for just a few square meters of land, you're delusional if you think the Russian nation will just let itself be destroyed without fighting back. Nominal GDP is not a good way to measure wealth, GDP PPP, industrial output and other stats are better. Russia is not a superpower but no one can deny that Russia is an industrial power. Your hate of Russia disgust me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#Russia

Lets remember how things unfolded last time was there much fighting? The China has fairly simple working strategy they stimulate immigration into formerly annexed parts at current rates in a decade +/- they will be local majority population.

Most likely? Based on what?

The more probable reason in my eyes is that criminal Hillary is more likely to engage Russia in conflict.

I mean Putin has dirt on Trump (based on Trumps shady dealings with Ukrainian and Russian Oligarchs)

The entire world has dirt on Clinton given her email server security.