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..."
The sheer transparency of the attempt to discredit Wikileaks for its role in exposing the inner workings of the US ruling class is hilarious.
Gee, I wonder why the old media might be working overtime to discredit Wikileaks, who they till recently were madly in love with?
Funny how the media lambasted Mitt Romney for his position on Russia being a shitty foe. But now, omg so bad!
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?
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.
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.