Slashdot Mirror


Did Russia Trick Snowden Into Going To Moscow?

An anonymous reader writes "Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko says that spies from Russia's SVR intelligence service, posing as diplomats in Hong Kong, convinced Snowden to fly to Moscow last June. 'It was a trick and he fell for it,' Karpichko, who reached the rank of Major as a member of the KGB's prestigious Second Directorate while specializing in counter-intelligence, told Nelson. 'Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.'"

8 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > This now comes down to whether Snowden was a "useful idiot" or was he working for the Russians all along

    If he had been working for them all along he:

    (1) Would have gone directly to Russia
    (2) Would not have given the information to reporters

  2. to say its trickery is wrong. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saying it was a trick flagrantly ignores the fact that the vast majority of more than 75 nations would openly and gladly transfer snowden to the United States. As a nation all we'd have to do is threaten to withhold/offer to increase aid to the target nation and in turn theyd cough him up post-haste. this doesnt account for the numerous countries with dictatorial governments favorable to our interests in which we could simply just ask.
    Russia is one of a handful of successful foreign nations with the power, both economically and militarily to resist whatever the US asks for. Sending cia agents to him for rendition is a suicide mission, both militarily and politically. We are beholden to 5% of our oil supply from Russia, and the last time we offered an economic incentive was when we bought up a few hundred nuclear missiles from them and converted the payload to nuclear fuel in the 80's so we arent exactly an economic juggernaut in their world.

    snowden was smart to take the Russian offer. He was going to expose clandestine secrets about the United States government that fly in the face of the constitution and our rule of law, and Russia saw nothing but gain from his efforts. finally, after 50 years of chest thumping freedom and swinging-dick foreign policy, a piping hot dish of humble pie had been prepared to which America would reluctantly have to at least take a bite and say, "Politically we're no less reprehensible than any other nation. we just have better propaganda."

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  3. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So which US government agency fabricated this theory in order to bolster anti Snowden sentiments?

  4. Re: Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the US government is astroturfing anti Snowden propaganda like mad. No sane citizen would actually think Snowden is a traitor or even managed to harm US interests, where "US interests" is defined as the interests of the American people and not the interests of the kleptocratic psychos who make up the ruling class.

  5. Re:Useful Idiot or Russian Agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If he was really working with Russia he wouldn't have left at all. The whole point of being a double agent is to not out yourself. Since the NSA seemed to be so incompetent to allow him to download massive amounts of classified data he could have easily passed it on the Russia without detection or needing to leave the country. He left because he did not want to be silenced and rot in prison while the NSA kept chugging along with no one else the wiser.

  6. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, mostly because pretty much everything he has announced has been admitted to be true. I don't think I've seen any stories with Snowden-released information where it was disproven, although I could be wrong on that.

    On the other hand, the US (and other Governments) eventually admitted that he was telling the truth about the releases.

    Given two stories from two entities, one which is a proven liar and one which is not, which would you be more likely to trust?

  7. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even putting aside the facts that he was willing to break the oaths he took when he got his security clearance

    The oath he took was to "protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

    He's committed many crimes, but breaking that oath does not appear to be one of them.

  8. Real easy to see what's going on here... by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine a hypothetical situation:

    You are cheating on your wife, and have been doing so for some time now. A good friend of hers finds out about what you're doing and tells your her. At this point, people are going to be pissed off at one of two people. People loyal to you are going to be pissed off at your wife's friend for ratting you out. People loyal to her are going to be pissed off at you, and see your wife's friend as a hero. That's just the way things work. So you can always tell where someone's loyalties really lie by determining whom they are pissed off at.

    In this situation, the secret police/military complex/power elite/establishment is effectively screwing over the general public and the Constitution (the highest law of that land, for those that are unfamiliar), and has been doing so for some time now. Someone finds out about what they're really doing and tells us. At this point, people are pissed off at one of two people (or groups of people). People who are loyal to the secret police/military complex/power elite/establishment are pissed off at Snowden for ratting them out. People loyal to the general public and Constitution are pissed off at the people screwing them, and see him as a hero.

    I'm not trying to scream "shill" to every person who wants Snowden's head on a pike, but you'd better believe that any prominent figure who is crying traitor day in and day out in the public media, well, you know where their loyalties lie is all I'm saying. It's not too hard to figure it out.