Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Is Georgia on the Cusp of a Colour Revolution?" video.

@eldrago19 That is an arbitrary distinction. At least, one that should also be covered by the law. And what constitutes 'on the behalf of' (unless stated in the law itself?) is a matter of interpretation. Simply currying voter favor through humanizing depictions of the lobbying country (for example the S. Korean government literally planned out K-Pop in the 1990s to boost their image worldwide) can be seen as 'acting on the behalf of' South Korea. Can you explain again why needing to disclose foreign sources of income as a media organization is a bad thing? Is the threshold for punishment also vague?
4
@elljay13 If the differences you're describing are true, then FARA is ineffective. Taking an example that I'm certain you won't oppose— were RT and Sputnik not on FARA's list? Or Al Jazeera, which refuses to report negatively on Qatar? Arirang News, from North Korea? CGTN? The Georgian law, and Russian one, are better at actually keeping the media landscape honest. Foreign agencies have the advantage of not being tied to the state they're broadcasting to, and not being headquartered there— but their intentions may also be malicious. If your law can't root out news corporations that receive funding from a country with historically adversarial relations (RT in the US, Radio Free __ in Russia) then your law is useless. Same goes for Georgia— how stable and free is your society if your governments for the last 30 years can't even generate a climate where Georgian media thrives without needing foreign funding? And are you naive enough to think that they only do it out of the goodness of their hearts, and don't influence that media in any way whatsoever?
3
 @Joey-ct8bm Or Georgian independent news. By your logic is NYT, Washington Post and the Atlantic state-run?
3
@hatman3445 How does that make the law any better? A country's interests should foremost be be its own. Even allied nations (like Israel is to the US) can be a liability and a negative influence on the host country. In fact, giving "friendly" countries a special status acyually invites more of this insidious behavior. Frankly I think the US and Western media oppose this because it would primarily harm their interests. Russia is already hated in Georgia, they are not losing much with the passage of this law. But the US? They stand to lose significant influence in Georgia, and by extension influence on Russia, if Georgia manages to pass this bill into law.
3
@xnzym. Stable? Have you forgotten the farmer's protests or the impending economic crises? Democracy does not guarantee stability, and it's questionable whether the US' allies are even democratic, given how little effect voter behaviors seem to have on parties. From a UK perspective, does anyone really feel that coalition governments will really change things? You also forget that the US actively supported policies in the post-Soviet space throughout the 1990s that contributed to their dire situation. To even get an IMF loan, you must agree to privatize big parts of your economy. The same people who support "liberalization" would scream if the UK had to bail itself out of debt by dissolving the NHS. Yet it's happened dozens of times to "enemy countries" and neoliberals don't bat an eye.
3
 @ShubhamMishrabro Then it is the EU's fault. They aren't able to actually deliver of their promises, and countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Greece will never recover from being EU members
2
 @bigj1905 If there is a disconnect between the people and government, how is it a democracy?
1
Georgians cannot comprehend neutrality because they don't believe a word the Russians say. They think their only choice is between Brussels and Moscow. Never have they considered that Russia would leave them alone if they vowed to keep American political influence out of their country
1
 @puraLusa Propaganda? Did Europe's migrant crisis start after it dropped propaganda onto Libyan and Syrian cities? Lol
1
@hatman3445 All you said was "You're wrong, shut up!" but you never explained HOW I was wrong. Almost like you know I'm not, otherwise you'd have been all too happy to prove it. Can you actually explain to me why you think countries' laws shouldn't scrutinize a "friendly" country's NGOs just as much as an "unfriendly" one? Do you think there's something inherent in allyships that make mutually exclusive goals and conflicts of interest between allied countries impossible?
1
@lunachu8691 Do they? The Baltic's demographics are still declining, there has been no 'bounce back'. Ironically they peaked at the end of the Soviet period. Poland only worked because the US under National Security Advisor Brzezinski had a vested interest in poaching Poland from the Soviet sphere. The 'Balcerowicz Plan' wasn't followed anywhere else and is the reason most of these other countries have failed. That's actually why Russians hate the US again, because the mass liberalization was brought on by US advisors. Jeffrey Sachs is one of the few with a guilty conscience. And, since they're already part of NATO, why should the US care about their prosperity? They already have permanent military access to them, there's no disadvantage to the US even if they depopulate. Tallinn is the only place in Estonia that's growing, the rest of the country is emptying out. Same story in Latvia and Lithuania.
1