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..."

30 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. It's Hillary time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quick, blame the Russians for fucking EVERYTHING

    1. Re:It's Hillary time! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gee, I wonder why the old media might be working overtime to discredit Wikileaks, who they till recently were madly in love with?

    2. Re:It's Hillary time! by hsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny how the media lambasted Mitt Romney for his position on Russia being a shitty foe. But now, omg so bad!

    3. Re:It's Hillary time! by Anonymice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you say "the West", I'm guessing you really mean "the US". Because they could cause a lot of hurt to all of the "Western" countries that aren't the US (ie. Western Europe).
      They've got a strong military & a whole lot of man power. Let's not forget that it was basically Russia who won WWII - if it weren't for them, we'd be living in a very different world today.

    4. Re:It's Hillary time! by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The West does not understand this and is divided sharply upon every slight division possible.

      The division is deliberate. Politicians and the rich actively conspire to maintain the left/right division. While the plebs bicker about social issues, the elite are free to control the money.

    5. Re:It's Hillary time! by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Russia had their own spies in WW2. Never heard of Richard Sorge? The Russians basically knew Barbarossa was going to happen a long time before it did. They just did not have an exact date.

    6. Re:It's Hillary time! by HBI · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Soviet Union was every inch a real threat, as it had a real nuclear arsenal. The residual weapons in Russia's hands still make it the largest in the world in terms of warheads. It also had, by far, the largest credible conventional army in the world for 46 years after the end of WWII, with a history of regular use (1956, 1968, 1979/80), and battlefield success. The Soviets were involved in every brushfire war happening in Africa and Asia, and even a few involvements in the Americas - Cuba and Nicaragua come to mind. The Soviets were interested in dominating the world, though in a less revolutionary way than in the days of the original Comintern. Dozens of nations around the world had Marxist regimes sustained by Soviet aid, and growing that sphere of influence to isolate and Finlandize the West - and specifically the United States - was the Soviet plan.

      In summary, shove your revisionist crap up your ass. I lived in fear of those warheads ending society as I knew it for my first 20 years. The fact that the Soviets only got nuclear weapons through the actions of Communist spies and fellow travelers associated with the Manhattan Project...well, explains why I hate leftists gratuitously.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    7. Re:It's Hillary time! by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ROFL Wow you really swallowed the propoganda whole didn't you?

      You do know almost all of that global activity on the part of the soviets was because of our pissing match with them, right?

      "The Soviets were involved in every brushfire war happening in Africa and Asia, and even a few involvements in the Americas - Cuba and Nicaragua come to mind."

      You can say the same of us.

      "Dozens of nations around the world had Marxist regimes sustained by Soviet aid, and growing that sphere of influence to isolate and Finlandize the West - and specifically the United States - was the Soviet plan."

      lol Yes, because going communist would destroy us!

      The soviets had warheads because we had warheads. They had no more interest in actually using them than we did. Actually they had far less interest, we were the only nation evil enough to use nuclear weapons once nations understood what they did and we tested them so we knew before we used them.

      "I lived in fear of those warheads ending society as I knew it for my first 20 years."

      Right, because your government told you to be afraid of them. The same government that told you to be afraid of those evil commies and their nucs also told children that if one showed up they should climb under their desk or curled up in a ball lining the halls at school. They aren't actually gone you know any more than ours are. The only thing that is different is the fear mongering.

    8. Re:It's Hillary time! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's not forget that it was basically Russia who won WWII

      Well, they certainly bled enough in WW2. But remember that the USA fought Germany and Japan both, while supplying the UK, Russia and China (we sent north of 10,000 tanks to Russia. And a similar number or warplanes. And a metric fuckton of other war material).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:It's Hillary time! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, when Romney blasted Russia, Russia had not done anything wrong. I mean, sure, they weren't being very democratic and Putin had been dodging around their constitution to stay in power, but on the international stage they had been behaving.

      Putin and Bush were good buddies and got along well together. Russia hadn't invaded any other nations or instigated a civil war in any neighbours. We didn't know anything about state sponsored doping. Russia hadn't been sending troops to their western border. Russia wasn't building new nuclear fallout shelters at a rapid rate back then.

      Russia was behaving admirably for an authoritarian dictatorship. So yes, Romney deserved criticism back then; it was a different world and east/west relations were better.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re:It's Hillary time! by Ryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Great, you watched that show on Netflix about Stalin and how his stupidity almost lost the war. Nobody is disputing that, even in Russia. But to claim that D-day somehow magically won the war for UK/US is bogus. Nazis surrended in Stalingrad in February of 1943. Battle of Kursk took place in August 1943. By the time Allies landed in Normandy the Soviets were pushing west through Ukraine, Belarus and Poland.

  2. really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anything to distract people from the massive corruption in the west.

  3. I'd noticed that too...one way leaks by speedlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:I'd noticed that too...one way leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I already know Russia is corrupt. I already know the Saudis are corrupt. I already know China is corrupt. These things are not news, and the citizens of these countries are already fully informed as to the corruption of their respective governments.

      Westerners still labor under the delusion that their governments "aren't as bad" as those nasty foreigners. Wikileaks, and the internet in general, threatens to overturn that, which is why the media and the politicians are united in their demonization of whistleblowing.

    2. Re:I'd noticed that too...one way leaks by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The most interesting ones come from the KGB archives. Turns out CPUSA was paid for by the Ruskies (and it's leaders answered to them), the Rosenbergs were guilty, Alger Hiss was an agent of Stalin, etc etc. It's almost like the Birchers knew something.

      But that's not what you're asking, see sibling replies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:I'd noticed that too...one way leaks by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Westerners still labor under the delusion that their governments "aren't as bad" as those nasty foreigners.

      That's not a delusion. Western, democratic governments with a free press aren't as bad as countries without the feedback loops provided by the aforementioned characteristics. This should not be taken to mean that they don't contain plenty of corruption, they do... but it is the exception, not the rule. If you've ever lived in a country where corruption is actually the norm then you will understand the difference, and it will be abundantly clear why people in such countries don't bother publishing information about corruption, or get upset about it when such information is published.

      A common problem on slashdot, and elsewhere, is the sort of false equivalency implied by the parent. The world is not black and white, it is full of shades of gray, and it really is possible to have corruption, even serious corruption, while still having less corruption than someone else. It's also perfectly reasonable -- and appropriate -- to feel proud to be a citizen of a country with less corruption while still being angry and incensed about the corruption that does exist. Indeed, having citizens get angry about the corruption that exists and caring enough about their country to take action is the only way to fix the corruption. Attitudes like the parent's actually facilitate corruption because they encourage one to simply accept it (and other problems) as inevitable.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:I'd noticed that too...one way leaks by Gibgezr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Straight from the Wikileaks refutation of this article:
      WikiLeaks has published more than 650,000 documents about Russian & president Putin, most of which is critical. See https://search.wikileaks.org/

  4. Yeah, because it's only Russia that benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The sheer transparency of the attempt to discredit Wikileaks for its role in exposing the inner workings of the US ruling class is hilarious.

    1. Re:Yeah, because it's only Russia that benefits by chispito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sheer transparency of the attempt to discredit Wikileaks for its role in exposing the inner workings of the US ruling class is hilarious.

      I think the valid criticism though, is that Wikileaks only works against entities that won't shoot your kids in front of you if they suspect you're leaking their private business. Snowden, for instance, would not have done what he did if he thought the NSA was going to go after his family after he fled.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  5. Incriminating documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. tl;dr version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  7. Trump for President so Wikileaks is "good" again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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".

  8. Classic McCarthyism by sbrown123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  9. Our daily FUD give us today by sciengin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Interesting by XXongo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  11. Did any of you actually read the article? by chriskovo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. The Daily Mail is NOT a reliable news source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  13. Re:You can't be okay with this by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. World's foremost expert on Gorbachev says by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ....".

  15. Unsettlng relationship between the media and DNC? by Xenographic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    Re: WaPo Party

    From:kaplanj@dnc.org
    To: RangappaA@dnc.org
    Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
    Subject: Re: WaPo Party

    Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

    We are waiting

    Jordan Kaplan
    National Finance Director
    Democratic National Committee
    (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
    kaplanj@dnc.org

    > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
    >
    > They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.