Slashdot Mirror
The Unsettling Relationship Between Russia and Wikileaks (dailymail.co.uk)
schnell writes: The New York Times is reporting on the informal but seemingly symbiotic relationship between Russian hackers attacking American targets and Wikileaks (Warning: may be paywalled) as their favorite spot for disseminating the embarrassing results. New York Times reports: "American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But the agendas of WikiLeaks and the Kremlin have often dovetailed." When it comes to embarrassing the U.S. government, Russia and Wikileaks' Julian Assange doubtlessly have common interests. But the reporters' analysis of leaks over the past several years raises a question of whether this is just a natural alliance of a source for incriminating documents and a motivated publisher, or does Wikileaks focus on the U.S. and downplay revelations about authoritarian regimes like Russia's as a result of the cozy relationship? nickovs adds: The New York Times is reporting how Russia often benefits when Julian Assange reveals the West's secrets. The article discusses Assange's change in stance regarding Russia over the years and how the Kremlin appears to support, and benefit from, the leaks that he publishes. The New York Times reports: "United States officials say they believe with a high degree of confidence that the Democratic Party material was hacked by the Russian government, and suspect that the codes may have been stolen by the Russians as well. That raises a question: Has WikiLeaks become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by Russian spies? And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin's Kremlin?" Daily Mail (non paywalled source) reports: "In 2010 Assange was arrested in London on allegations of rape stemming from Sweden and released on bail. He described the arrest as a plot to extradite him to the U.S. where he could be investigated over the diplomatic cables leak, which greatly harmed American relations with the rest of the world while Clinton was Secretary of State. Putin also called the charges against Assange 'politically motivated' and said he is being 'persecuted for spreading the information he received from the U.S. military regarding the actions of the USA in the Middle East, including Iraq.' Russian officials have also suggested that Assange be given a Nobel Prize, and in 2012 paid to stream his TV show on state-backed network Russia Today. The Times also claims that Assange was offered a visa by Russia in 2011, though WikiLeaks has denounced this as false..."
Quick, blame the Russians for fucking EVERYTHING
If not, I would definitely be suspicious because they should have all kinds of crazy going on in
Anything to distract people from the massive corruption in the west.
Where are the leaks from USSR ? Plans for Ukraine, or other disputed areas ? I'd love to see how much oil is left in Saudi.... Maybe something about the Chinese space program ? Trumps' tax returns ? (I'm sure on that one he was smarter than Hillary and nothing was attached to the internet)
The sheer transparency of the attempt to discredit Wikileaks for its role in exposing the inner workings of the US ruling class is hilarious.
Ever considered that the Real Enemy (TM) is the very existence of those "incriminating documents"?
IOTW, if the US executive is doing dirty things and being intransparent it's pretty irrelevant whether Bad, Bad Assange is in Bed with Bad Bad Putin or not. Stop being such big assholes and you won't have this problem!
Instead, the U.S. tries to discredit the source and is playing a dirty game. No wonder theories as "the whole might-have-been rape story has been planted by CIA/NSA" and now this one too sound all too plausible. It's the kind of dirty game those three-leters customarily engage in.
Wikileaks is damaging Hillary's campaign - they must be destroyed!
Remember how awesome Wikileaks was when this happened?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak
Well, now they are going after the wrong party, so they are bad now. // Not voting for Hillary OR Trump
Just want to point out that this is squarely in the middle of the definition of "conspiracy theory": The DNC is a conspiracy theorist hub and interest group.
Of course, they won't be widely called conspiracy theorists, despite being conspiracy theorists. Words aren't used based on whether they are true, but whether they are useful, and only sometimes is it useful to label a conspiracy theorist as that.
Just another example of Russia being infinitely better at influence operations and utilizing modern tools to wage low-level conflict. Take notes...Putin's putting on a clinic.
Even if the U.S. is using these tactics to some degree, the Russians are gaining practical experience that is tough to match.
Hey kids, remember when nazi-Bush was president and Wikileaks was great because "truth to power"?
Well, that's all gone away now that the president happens to have a "D" next to his title and Empress Hillary needs to be coronated!
One reason to elect Trump is that if he's president "speaking truth to power" will be OK again. If Hildabeast takes over then we are right back to censorship being a great thing and Slashdot's "editors" doing their part to be useful idiots for the "cause".
I wonder what they are worried Wikileaks will reveal next about Hillary? Media is putting up its deflector shields to max just in case. Anything released by Wikileaks will result in reporters trying to steer every conversation to talking about this conspiracy they are fabricating.
More proof that despite being a huge jackass in general, Assange is probably onto something.
They would not squeal this loud if he were not effective or if the documents he keeps releasing were in any way fake.
It's a pretty fascinating article. I do suggest reading the actual article, instead of just the slashdot summary, which slightly emphasized the anti-Assange parts and doesn't go into a lot of the rest of the article, which does go into other things.
But, here was one section that I found interesting: a leak that apparently WikiLeaks didn't publish:
WikiLeaks was just getting started in 2006 when Mr. Assange, an Australian national, sent a mission statement to potential collaborators. One of his goals, he said, was to help expose “illegal or immoral” behavior by governments in the West. Mr. Assange made clear, though, that his main focus lay elsewhere. “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia,” he wrote. Shortly after releasing the war logs in 2010, Mr. Assange threatened to make good on that promise. WikiLeaks, he told a Moscow newspaper, had obtained compromising materials “about Russia, about your government and your businessmen.”
But Mr. Assange’s life was soon upended. On Nov. 20 of that year, an international warrant was issued for his arrest in connection with allegations of sexual assault in Sweden, which he denies. Eight days later, WikiLeaks’ release of a cache of State Department cables cast unvarnished — and unwelcome — light on the United States’ diplomatic relationships.
...Mr. Assange, asked soon after by Time magazine whether he still planned to expose the secret dealings of the Kremlin, reiterated his earlier vow. “Yes indeed,” he said. But that promised assault would not materialize. Instead, with Mr. Assange’s legal troubles mounting, Mr. Putin would come to his defense. ...One day after Mr. Assange’s arrest, the Russian president appeared at a news conference with the French prime minister. Brushing off a questioner who suggested that the diplomatic cables portrayed Russia as undemocratic, Mr. Putin used the opportunity to bash the West.
Wait, what? In 2010 WikiLeaks was going to publish materials “about Russia, about your government and your businessmen”... but never did? What happened to that leak?
There seems to be a non-paywalled version of the article on "Alaska Dispatch News", for what it's worth:
http://www.adn.com/nation-world/2016/08/31/how-russia-often-benefits-when-julian-assange-reveals-the-wests-secrets/
It was rather well put together and the pieces connected If you thought about it. This guys ego was always out of control but it seems to be getting worse lately. Everyone praises what this guy did but with all the stuff he released the Middle east has turned into a shit show. It wasn't great before but at least they didn't have at least 2 failed states there and chaos. That's all that has occurred their from the diplomatic releases he threw out there. Not freedom and civilization but just chaos and a degeneration into tribalism. The entire middle east is worse off now than what it was a few years ago. And im sorry Russia at this point is an enemy and threat to everyone. Its gobbled up parts of two countries in the last few years and threaten others to try to get its way. Its now an autocratic state run by a guy that wants to grab anything he can. In what bizzaro politically correct world do you live in that you cant see that? There are people out there that don't give a shit about law or civilization. They just will try to take as much as possible from you just cause they like having power. The only way to protect yourself from that is to have your threat and to protect your own people. That's just how the world is and its not going to change.
There are two things we are being prepared for:
1) The Department of Homeland Security wants to secure our elections for us, aka power grab.
2) The leaks are being discredited with the suggestion that the Russians are modifying or fabricating the documents, aka cover up.
We may be stupid as a group, but we know the NY times has lost _all_ credibility.
It's in the sewer with MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Just an outlet for one of the major parties national committees.
The only people that believe a thing printed there are already 'in the sack' for the Ds. Some will be along shortly to moderate me troll or spit venom in a reply.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Really. Not reliable. Don't quote "the Mail". It's a good way of finding yourself ridiculed in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
It would make no difference to me if Assange rolled out of Putin's bed each morning. The information leaked has proven to be true time and time again which is the only credibility that messenger needs.
Nothing leaked about those other nations, including Russia, would make the information leaked about Western governments and US suddenly be less bad.
Screaming "The Russians are coming!" and running around like your head is cut off isn't going to distract me from the content of the leaks any more than it distracted me when they revealed Hillary Clinton was guilty of a DNC conspiracy worse than anything Nixon even attempted. I certainly don't think anyone missed the part where the very morning this terrible scandal was revealed instead of questioning whether the delegates were going to do their duty and change the outcome on behalf of the disenfranchised voters they represented had nothing but a stream of major news outlets questioning whether Sanders was going to get his "supporters in line" or could "control his people" in a tone that very much said you "better get your bitch on a leash."
Does anyone think for a second that the Russians are going to turn over emails they acquire illegally without editing the content?
Yes. Because editing content or libel as it is otherwise called can be proven. And once it happens the outlet is permanently discredited.
If it's state sponsored this is bordering on an act of war and Wikileaks is party to it.
Bullshit. It's not even remotely close to an act of war.
Wikileaks can leak documents from US government on other countries...and they have; it is just not intentional (yet) on the part of the US. As far as a bias... the US waging a cold war on Wikileaks does foster resentment...
US elections now involve BILLIONS of dollars in propaganda spending; a great deal of that spending goes to media outlets. Surely you must notice how the "news" of organizations is skewed by their advertisers?
Remember when email viruses were a big thing in the 90s because of Outlook and the media never said Microsoft during their reports? MS advertising did that. I knew a news director, he said how it really works... Or how about how ADM, Monsanto, and other corporations with zero customers will pay huge amounts to advertise on networks with an investigative news capacity? PBS Frontline has probably brought in more corporate donations than any other PBS show.
Remember WMD in Iraq? Cheney planted lies in the NY Times and then cited them in the rush to war. That didn't even cost $ to use NY Times.
Foreign corporations are buying influence in US elections more than ever before (and multinationals who are considered based in the USA should be considered just as bad.) The big bad Russians are a tiny problem; best used as a scapegoat for anybody who wants to play dirty - plus it helps politicians looking for an enemy as they ramp up for another war to save the collapsing American "Empire" card house.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
One person knows 100 times more about Soviet policy during the cold war than either you or I know. Mikhail Gorbachev knows what he was trying to do.
When I've been to an event with Gorbachev and heard what he has to say, he was pretty clear that both he and Reagan sought to destroy the other country. Reagan's goal was finally achieved on December 25, 1991; the Soviets had the same goal going the other way.
Asked about certain events which occurred after the Cold War, Gorbachev used an interesting phrase to refer to that time period, "After Reagan defeated us ....".
Who's going to waste time publishing "shocking" allegations of Putin's ill-begotten wealth or deep-rooted corruption at all levels of Russian government when everyone both inside and outside Russia has known about it forever? You might as well publish "water is still wet".
Wikileaks did do some good work exposing specific corruption in some African nations, but didn't get a lot of media attention for it since nobody was particularly shocked by the allegations.
This space intentionally left blank
When will they explore the unsettling relationship between the media and the DNC? Or is it normal to hold clandestine fundraisers that their own lawyers forbid?
Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699