[mistermann]

Also, if this is a genuine risk to be concerned about (as was the Cuban Missile Crisis), then why[1] are similar concerns out of Russia "not objective/logical/valid"?

[1] No "correct by definition" memes, please. Imagine that you are writing code and thus have to be logical, exhaustively if you want to achieve correctness.

[nonameiguess]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.

[mistermann]

> I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair.

Oh, I understand: it is that Westerners believe that what is mandatory for us is optional for others.

> We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert.

Right: regional security for us, but not for you.

> When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too."

Yes it is, because it illustrates hypocrisy, thus is a gotcha.

> Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.

Right, but our politicians and media lie about what is going on, and lots of people believe them so now we have a mess on our hands.