How about the coups in Guatemala or Iran? In one sense, those are different because we viewed both of those countries as lesser powers and within our sphere of influence, but I would argue that the underlying philosophy of democracy is that all men and women, everywhere, are created equal, which means us secretly meddling in the elections of tiny Gadjookistan has comparable moral weight to Evil Empire meddling in ours. We don’t always live up to that ideal; pluralistic democracy certainly does better than a totalitarian system, but we aren’t blameless. I believe we can be a stronger advocate for democracy abroad by owning up to our past mistakes, making some kind of amends, and making plans for what to do in similar situations in the future that avoid making those mistakes. Containing communism was viewed as a critical threat, but how much did we hurt the long-term cause for democracy by taking short-term steps to suppress what may well have been early democratic socialist leaders? I can’t tell you for sure that Arbenz wouldn’t have been an early Hugo Chavez (at whose feet I lay most of the blame for Venezuela’s current troubles), but I think we ought to have at least let the Guatemalans make their own mistakes.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27éta...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

The US loaned the Yeltsin government 10 billion dollars shortly before the 96 election, at the same time they were involved with the First Chechen War. A Republican consultant team also ran Yeltsin's campaign.

The US looks great when compared to Stalin era USSR. When compared to modern day Russia, it's hard to argue we have the unquestionable moral high ground.

> When compared to modern day Russia, it's hard to argue we have the unquestionable moral high ground.

It's very easy. Putin is a dictator and the Russians have no democracy, undermine others, poison people, etc. The U.S. doesn't have clean hands, but there is no comparison.

Democracy does not mean moral, though you posted this on the day of the Russian election. And though they're obviously rigged, the US one isn't some glorious opportunity for the will of the people to be heard either.

As for your other two issues, the US has had no issue undermining elections for years, and runs a public assassination program in addition to anything that remains secret. There is a comparison, and both sides are awful.

> Democracy does not mean moral

Yes it does. Democracy (the concept) is moral because it gives self-determination and liberty to people. Of course, everything, including democracy, is very imperfect in execution.

> the Russian election. And though they're obviously rigged, the US one isn't some glorious opportunity for the will of the people to be heard either.

Again, there is no comparison. It's like saying Hitler and the U.S. both used internment camps in WWII, therefore they are morally equal.

Self-determination and liberty are not necessarily moral either. There have been moral despots and immoral democracies, there is more involved than that.

>Again, there is no comparison.

Yes, there is. On basic principle, the choice between two is not far better than one choice. Beyond that, some of the things done to rig American elections are worse than what Putin does. For example, in 68 Nixon interfered in Vietnam peace talks to ensure election. What would have happened without that is unclear, but it potentially cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

>The false equivalencies appear on every issue that casts the Chinese or Russian governments in a bad light.

Yeah and it even has its own yankee response meme called "whataboutism". If we want to go peak "whataboutism" here, the founding of the US was based on the ethnic slaughter and enslavement of millions of aboriginal and african peoples. American culture and corporations have a hand in nearly every corner of the world. If you want to get into the head of Russian paranoia towards the US and the anglosphere in general, look at the US for what its ruling elites have historically demonstrated itself to do, to dominate everything that exists by any means necessary which includes wiping out inconvenient peoples both culturally and literally.

You brought up a term you don't like, and then complained about it.

> If you want to get into the head of Russian paranoia towards the US and the anglosphere in general, look at the US for what its ruling elites have historically demonstrated itself to do, to dominate everything that exists by any means necessary which includes wiping out inconvenient peoples both culturally and literally.

That's quite a statement. The Americas are generally free, independent democracies, including U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico. The places conquered by the US in WWII soon became, free, prosperous and completely independent allies, Germany and Japan being the leading examples.

In fact, at the end of the war the US was the only nuclear armed power, had half the world's GDP (!) with a fully functioning economy while competitors were physically and economically devastated, and had a massive military spread around the globe. They could have chosen to become dictators to the world; instead they withdrew and helped form international institutions, such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, GATT/WTO, and others, to promote international peace and prosperity.

Yes, the US also did bad things, but the parent's statement is false and, of course, Russia does not compare.