Putin’s State Media News Is Interrupted: ‘They’re Lying to You’
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I nominate Marina Ovsyannikova for International Woman of the Year.
As much as I am revolted by Russian invasion and the apparent broad support from Russians, the bravery of those who oppose it publicly is real and enormous.
Her bravery is incredible.
It was an absolute shit show of lies that nobody really believed. A million people protested https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_pr...
And still, the war went on as usual.
Even if 90% of Russians protested against the invasion of Ukraine I couldn't be sure it would make a difference.
As it is, most Russians don't even see this as a war, just a continuation of the ongoing Donbass conflict.
And mind you, prisons aren’t made equal. Russian ones are on the tough end of the scale.
That plays easily into the common narrative of Americans being bloodthirsty or brainwashed by their media but it simply isn't correct. There definitely was a period after 9/11 when any criticism of the government or war against Afghanistan and Iraq was seen as unpatriotic, the Dixie Chicks were cancelled, French fries became Freedom fries, and propaganda like Courtesy of the Red White and Blue became hits. But the US is more complex than many people give it credit for, and there were also protests in the streets and criticism within the media, even people going to Iraq to serve as human shields[0] against their own military.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_action_to_Iraq
“If you think that we will stop in #Ukraine, you are deeply mistaken, this is just an intermediate stage” says the main Kremlin’s propagandist, Vladimir Solovyev
1. I have heard many stories online, and even in-person, of people calling home to Russia and their families not believing the facts of the war in Ukraine.
2. One of the bigger sub-stories from the war in Ukraine is the availability of commercial satellite imagery.
Problem: Information asymmetry can lead to state sponsored mass murder.
Solution: Require universal access to 24hr-old global imaging to all citizens, if your country wants to be part of the global economic system.
I skipped over many problems to avoid a wall of text. I look forward to hearing why this idea could never work.
I personally thought that Russia proved that the total mind control is possible without cutting off alternative points of view and 1984 is exaggeration, but apparently it's not enough in the time of crisis like invasion of Ukraine. Now they have to introduce 15-year prison sentences for telling that the "sky is blue" metaphorically speaking.
See also the Daily Mail its partner in crime in nastyness.
Prove you worked against the regime and renounce your Russian Citizenship and get a Western passport. Let's see what Russians chose.
Seems like yet another masquerade created by Russian propaganda.
I am not sure that this is how it'll end. Could be common revolt with army support.
>"I'm not sure I can name a single dictatorship that's suddenly turned free."
Because you did not look. Romania and Argentina for example. You can find others but whatever.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-14/elon-musk...
> Billionaire Elon Musk has challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin to “single combat”, with the “stakes” being Ukraine.
> With Mr Putin’s name written in Russian and Ukraine written in Ukrainian, the Tesla chief executive tweeted: “I hereby challenge (Vladimir Putin) to single combat.
> “Stakes are (Ukraine).”
The nerve of that guy. Ukraine isn't his to bet.
Its just a matter of time before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox becomes reality.
When I saw it in the nineties the ending felt like there is a hope what a solution for a peaceful co-existence and partnership could be found soon.
Both of them are working FOR Putin
Assange likely started with pure motives, but became compromised as WL ran out of money. He (claimed he) was about to release a pile of intelligence against the Russian govt & oligarchy, then never did, and was soon doing spots on RU.
The vast bulk of Snowden's pilfered haul had nothing to do with his stated aims, and definitely put agents in danger. And of course he ended up there. Notice he's not said a word since the RUS invasion of Ukraine. He hasn't got enough courage to be worthy to lick clean the soles of Marina Ovsyannikova's shoes.
Snowden, I think, somewhat blinded by the overwhelming US propaganda machine and the fact that he's stuck in Russia, made an honest mistake. He admitted as much on his Twitter. Nobody's perfect, that doesn't mean they're working for Putin.
For reference on what such a machine actually looks like, go look at Russian media this last two weeks.
Read what people who were actually in the intelligence agencies said; this [0][1]should have enough details and links to start you off.
You might also note that while the progressive Barack Obama had no problem pardoning Manning, he did no such thing for Snowdon. This was after the US House Intelligence Committee — not intelligence agency people, and both parties — UNANIMOUSLY voted to approve a report on Edward Snowden finding that he "did tremendous damage" to U.S. national security [2].
Perhaps you can explain how the whole airport fiasco and taking on Snowdon could have happened without Putin's direct approval - and why he'd do such a thing if it is "only" US civil rights issues at stake from Snowdon's theft.
Perhaps you can also explain how among the million+ documents Snowdon stole, only a few actually have anything to do with the headlines touting the civil liberty cause - e.g., exposing details of Israel’s killing of senior WMD proliferators in Syria [3]. Seriously, how does that improve anything in the US?
If you actually bother to look, without the hero-worshipping glasses and Qanon-level suspicion of anything related to government, you find that his massive story is a fraud.
Seriously, stop being fooled. I was similarly fooled, until I started trying to find actual experts on what had happened, and not just going along with the utter Kremlin line pushed out by popular trolls like Greenwald, and picked up and repeated uncritically.
[0] https://observer.com/2016/09/the-real-ed-snowden-is-a-patsy-...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200606111426/https://20committ...
[2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-intelligence-committee-rel...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20200226232346/https://www.jpost...
As another poster mentioned, they may have started that way but they became compromised and their motives now are not so clear. Self interest has become more prominent in their decisions and perhaps it was always that way.
This protestor on the news however has courage.
His last tweet hit me pretty hard, and I started worrying about his general safety after that. I don't wish being in an authoritarian state as a foreigner during a massive external and internal conflict and I'm very worried for his safety (and I mean that both in and outside of Russia)
[0] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705
"I'm not suspended from the ceiling above a barrel of acid by a rope that burns a little faster every time I tweet, you concern-trolling ghouls. I've just lost any confidence I had that sharing my thinking on this particular topic continues to be useful, because I called it wrong."
I'd be curious to know what makes you say that, but beyond that, even the people here who believe their intent was not so pure cannot deny that the actual effect of the Snowden revelations has been a widely increased awareness about privacy, and much increased legitimacy for the products and ideas that attempt to improve the privacy situation for the average user (not sure if Assange/WikiLeaks revelations have had any material effect apart from shock at the scale of corruption being even beyond what people assumed).
Far from the "Snowden revelations changed nothing" cry of despair that was popular for a while, it's becoming clear that they changed the conversation around privacy from hypothetical situations from tinfoil hatters, to something everyone can and does talk about.
I don't doubt the leaks from Snowden increased awareness of privacy.
Snowdens early justification statements were "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building. "
He was either a pawn or naive. Perhaps at the time we all were.
Snowden then went to China and then Russia. These are hardly the bastion of human rights, privacy and freedom that he supposedly fought for.
At some point we have to admit that all countries of any significance likely have intelligence and monitoring programmes. Maybe (in countries with some semblance of freedom) these are there to protect us from those countries that work against those same principles Snowden claimed to support.
I can't fault him for that. What would you suggest that he should have done instead?
Similar to Snowden was case of Alexander Litvinenko. Unfortunately Litvinenko was not hiding from USA but from Russia and is now dead.
It's the West that needs this kind of intervention.