@p
> The popular conception of the 1950s version of the US didn't exist in the US, either, if it makes you feel any better. People here are trying to return to a time that we never had.
Ha-ha-ha, right! But at least younger Americans can talk to their elders — those whom they can trust and have it from the mouth of actual eyewitnesses, the ones who Russian youth can talk to are American young adults, who, like you said, might have very wrong idea of it themselves — and of course they would listen only to those whose words align with their own ideas well.
It isn't different about young Russians and USSR. I did see USSR and although I was still a kid, it still helps me tell if what I'm told is complete bullshit or not. But there are Russians born in 1991 and younger who can tell you a lot of amazing things about USSR because… Why listen to stupid boomers when they can listen to this socialist professor — yeah, he's never been to USSR, so what? He tells cool things! Their idea of their own country's past comes from what gets regurgitated in the West and fed back to them. It's funny and troubling at the same time. I've seen a girl telling with a straight face that Soviet people were washing plastic bags because they've been ecology-conscious, but I know for sure that it wasn't the case — even Soviet state-level experiments aside with nuclear explosions and changing the flow of rivers, on pedestrian level — there were runny taps in every home, no one cared about this shit! And plastic bags — they were rare, but looked cool and everyone was poor so if you wanted you plastic bag to last longer you had to wash it. But I would never be able to prove it to this girl — she just won't believe me as sustainability aligns with modern progressive agenda so well :marseyemojismilemouthtighteyes:
> The best way to look at this is to ask "Why wouldn't they?"
Well, certainly, there is always a possibility — I never rule that out. If other proof, direct and in certain cases indirect, comes up — I would accept that. Until that, Occam's razor applies: just because they could have, doesn't mean that they did.
Some people — not you, you're reasonable, want me to take US' involvement in some coups and revolutions for granted, but they never cite Iran's case as an example. I think there is a reason for that: these ops are extremely hard to carry out and coordinate, human error is not a made up thing — people fuck up all the time, but in these cases you can't really afford it, especially if it's a covert op. TP AJAX isn't a secret anymore — and it's a perfect example how things can go wrong. This operation had its reasons, it was planned — but eventually it span out of control and turned into a complete clusterfuck. I have very low regard of CIA (or any "special" service really) but even they aren't that reckless. I mean destabilizing the region isn't exactly rocket science, but keeping it under your control — that's easier said than done.
It's always easy for me to believe in Russia's involvement, but it doesn't mean that I should always do that. The most recent example: Russia's involvement in BLM protests. There is obvious intent — weakening US is in Russia's interests. And there is even proof — the investigators have found papers in Africa indicating that they've been planning to erect training camps, in Cameroon I think, to train black people to incite violent protests to send them to the US. So there were preparations even — but was it carried out? Or, what's more important, was it as efficient as they have planned it to be? I don't think so.
@PurpCat @ins0mniak @olmitch