You don't need to be a professor to know that sooner or later anything will fragment or "reshape" itself. Just learn the last 2000 years of history.

I think that what the OP is saying is that it's way too easy to always blame it on someone else when actually it's the voters' responsibility. We are definitely influenced by media, however, ultimately it's up to us to decide who to vote for, so it's our responsibility. Ignoring it doesn't make us less accountable.

Occam's Razor suggests that the people who voted for Brexit didn't think that they were receiving net benefits from the EU. I'm pretty sure the net financial transfer is Britain sends more money to the EU than they get back, so it is easy to see why a tax-paying voter might feel that way.

There is an argument that this view is too simplistic and that the trade situation is complicated; but it seems a lot more plausible than a Russian conspiracy to ... do something.

There is always some level of background interference by foreign nations (as an Australian I shudder to think how much influence the US must have over Australia's politics in practice) but typically it would be cheaper to buy off or otherwise influence entrenched politicians rather than try to influence popular votes. I expect the Russians can figure that out too.

Its actually a tiny amount < £200 for me and I am well above the uk median wage - every one gets a yearly break down of where there tax gets spent

I am just observing. It’s very impressive for Russia to be the essential force behind all major opposition movements that apparently are not rooted in legitimate concerns.

You are not "just observing", you are creating straw positions and then being extremely disingenuous about it, to the point of outright trolling.

Why don't you just say what you bloody well mean, so we can discuss it properly, instead of making these lofty implications that don't pin you down to anything?

The problem is if the people of England is correct in the assertion that it has given away too much Democratic power to unelected political bodies, and I am not the one to answer that. I am just saying dismissing their concerns seem a bit unproductive.

Well, the EU government isn't really "unelected". It's just indirectly elected. Before 1913, for example, US state legislatures elected their state's senators. As I understand it, the original goal was to insulate senators somewhat from populist influence.

But yes, I get that this was a concern for Brexit supporters. I'm just arguing that Russia exploited it.

I didn't say "essential force". And I didn't deny "legitimate concerns". If your goal is sowing chaos, you gotta build from those legitimate concerns.

> If your goal is sowing chaos, you gotta build from those legitimate concerns.

Since when is "Europe is gonna be islamized by refugees" a legitimate concern? It's not backed by facts in any way! The point is these "concerns" are fabricated outright or massively exaggerated by propaganda. Which is to a huge part a fault of Facebook as they failed to curb abuse.

Yeah but exaggerated rhetoric has existed for millenniums and is an inherent part of how human societies work. Also the rhetoric might be exaggerated but there are always some basis behind it, e.g. job loss and wage stagnation due to globalization etc. Sure we need to counter it in a civilized society, but pinning it all on Russia using such absolutist terms is just laughable.

And the US do much direct and violent interventions in lots of foreign countries. This is bread and butter for international politics. The western mainstream media now pretend to have an outcry now that such tactics are befalling themselves, which is really ironic.

> Yeah but exaggerated rhetoric has existed for millenniums and is an inherent part of how human societies work.

Sure. There was always a single village moron (in German: Dorftrottel, no idea how to translate it) but he was ignored by society. Now, however, all the village morons worldwide are connected - and can claim massive followings and reach capability on social media. This is the key difference.

> but there are always some basis behind it, e.g. job loss and wage stagnation due to globalization etc.

Back in ye olde times, people went off, went on strikes and went after the employers to gain their rights and higher wages. Thanks to the propaganda, now they go after migrants, Muslims, Jews, PoC, whatever - but the capitalist elites get left alone. Which coincides with the funding for many right-wing organizations coming from very wealthy individuals (e.g. Koch, Mercer, or in Germany August von Finck).

> And the US do much direct and violent interventions in lots of foreign countries.

Sure, but that's a bit of whataboutism. I don't really like many of the things that the US have done (especially historically), but that does not excuse the stuff that China and Russia do.

I was trying to be accommodating. But yes, "existing" would have been more accurate.

It isn't so impressive or surprising if you observe that a KGB man is in charge of Russia and the three letter agencies in America tasked with countering him have been tied up with other tasks since the the eleventh of september 2001 for some reason.

As I said elsewhere: Yes, the KGB defector Yuri [1] in 1984 said as much that there is manipulation. He describes a slow distruption they started of America by infiltrating the education system. This attacks the weakness of a democracy, which is the fact that it’s run by people for the behest of itself as a system and does not answer to an estate that would otherwise check its malfunctioning.

However, that doesn’t mean the movements of dissent is caused by this. They could be, or they could be a symptom of the problems not solved by a long term malfunctioning Democratic system. And the malfunctioning could be some other more major political ideology.

[1] https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA

And not just a "KGB man". Much of Putin's family died in the siege of Leningrad. And, as his key assistant, he watched Yeltsin sink into alcoholism and depression, as the Soviet Union fell apart, and Russia was humiliated.

So he's recreated the KGB.[0]

0) https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/21/putin-has-finally-reinc...

Edit: That is, I think that it's personal, for him. A matter of honor.

Also, see this for context: https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-mem...

Agreed. To add to your points, Putin’s grandfather was a cook for Lenin and Stalin. Speculation: He grew up hearing about these ‘”heros”.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.rbth.com/document/5aa678c...

Yeltsin had sunk into bottle before Putin came in his sight in 1996.

Russian Foreign Intelligence Service is still separated from FSB/KGB.

edit: wording. Definitely not a russian intelligence agent :)

It's not really that surprising considering Russia has a century long supremacy in this area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

Nowadays it seems to lack some of the professionality of former times and sometimes looks more like hobby projects of Kremlin figures and Oligarchs to curry some favour.

Tradition, local competency, low cost and risk due to social platforms and online news make it a good fit for present day Russia.

You sound like either a troll or a PR agent. Not sure most HN readers who should be capable of thinking on their own would take you seriously though.

Again, nobody is really claiming they are an "essential force", only that they are a factor. Quit straw-manning.