7 ms·

As I read (forget the source) the purpose of insinuating they were gay had to do with convincing Russians they weren't military officers. Because apparently in

As I read (forget the source) the purpose of insinuating they were gay had to do with convincing Russians they weren't military officers. Because apparently in Russian society it is unthinkable that a military officer would be gay, so if they convince Russian citizens they are gay that also convinces them that they can't be GRU officers.

rdtsc 8y ago
Interesting, yeah I can see it. I bet they thought it would work from both angles. Westerners will feel sorry for exposing the gay tourists and Russians will feel convinced they can't be GRU officers.
- trhway 8y ago
  >Russians will feel convinced they can't be GRU officers Russian internet has a field day(or a month already really) of jokes that the GRU officers, which all are undoubtedly, in the Russian mythos, true patriots and heterosexual macho made in the image of the Putin himself, would carry out every order for the Motherland - to kill a traitor, to die for the Motherland, and even to truly practice homosexuality, all in the name of Motherland on the orders of "the comrade General". The guys in the interview are obviously very bad at impersonating gays, and that follows pretty much the same outrageous "signature" style (the Russian saying is "sewn together using white thread" as it is very noticeable on any garments except white) as using "Novichok" and polonium (or assassinating major opposition leader right in front of the Putin's office windows) - all that is to make sure that there are no doubts about who really did it while of course officially denying any responsibility. Just like the signature killings by Mafia (which the Russian government in its nature really is) - everybody has to clearly understand who did it without the perpetrators and their bosses explicitly claiming it. To the "the_grue" below - sorry, man, no offense, you just don't understand what you're talking about. Most probably you're just not a Russian. Edit: you added that you speak Russian. Being a Russian and speak Russian are 2 very different things. That ridicule you see on the Internet is real, no doubts. What you don't get is that it doesn't make Putin ridiculous [deep] in the eyes of the populace and that it wasn't a failure [deep] in the eyes of that populace - and that is the main tragedy of Russia.
  - the_grue 8y ago
    I don't buy it. This whole story makes GRU and, by extension, Putin himself look ridiculous in the eyes of their own populace. Russian-speaking Internet communities are savoring this failure in every conceivable way right now, ridiculing Putin and the Russian propaganda. And that's a major failure for Putin's regime, which is built on nationalism, on a promise of greatness, on claiming that Russia is a major world power, etc.
    - cuboidGoat 8y ago
      It makes them look like they do not care about putting on a good show, because they do not feel they need to and they find it funnier to present an obvious circus. It also might be doubling as a public punishment for the spies for being sloppy. Putting them on TV like that is directly telling them that their careers are over. If lucky, they might be transformed into celebrities, just for the annoyance value to the UK. Is the international politics equivalent of telling someone to stop hitting themselves, after grabbing their wrist and whacking them in the face with their own hand.
      - the_grue 8y ago
        That would be way too subtle for the common folk. Whatever GRU's plan was, in reality most Russian people just take it at face value: Russian spies got exposed, Putin's lie got exposed, the spies put on a miserable show on TV, and now even their true identities have been exposed (only one so far, but I expect the other one to be exposed soon, too). That's a failure. I'm pretty sure you're reading way too much into it because you've been told Putin (and, by extension, his subordinates) was a great tactician one step ahead of everyone else. I never believed it and I don't believe it now.
        cuboidGoat 8y ago
        >That would be way too subtle for the common folk. Are you channeling H. L. Menken? I think Putin is a comedian and two things I have noticed about Russian humour are firstly, always be deadpanning, and secondly, it isn't really funny unless someone ends up nearly dead. I also think he is a good tactician but a lousy strategist and I don't think he is in charge of as much of the CCCP as is made out. He is the front man for a conglomerate of interests, many of which operate largely autonomously, and would cause him no end of internal problems should he try and reign them in. This explains the sharp disconnect between the relative professionalism in the seizing of Crimea, while at the same time lending out SAM systems to idiots. I'd also say there is a very good chance that Putin did not order this operation in the first place and is playing cleanup. --- edit - I think there could also be a lot of "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" going on. It not being directly ordered is an alternative reason why someone so high up was doing this rather than a subordinate. This could well have been showing off to curry favour, knowing that the target was in the regime's bad books already. Being paraded on TV in the manner that they were after being uncovered, I think lends weight to this hypothesis.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
In decades past, being homosexual was considered a risk factor for intelligence agents. An adversary who knew they were gay could threaten exposure, thereby gaining a lever to potentially turn the agent. So they tried very hard to keep gays out of the intelligence services. I don't know if the US still does this. I'd be a bit surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia still did, though.
- solveit 8y ago
  I expect the US still does do this, but only for gay people in the closet since an openly gay person is immune to that sort of blackmail. Same goes for infidelity etc.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    Part of the reason they are slow-walking Trump's pronouncements on trans people in the military, is that after getting rid of 'don't ask don't tell', the military will have wanted to know about people's sexual preferences, especially in key roles, so as to guard against cases of blackmail. I guarantee that they will have key people who have told them all their kinks, that they are really trying hard not to get rid of.
cuboidGoat 8y ago
To anyone who has paid attention to any of the history of Russian/UK spy scandals, the idea that homosexuality would prevent someone from being a GRU officer, is frankly almost as hilarious as some of the Russian buzzfeed style sites posting articles about how Salisbury is the center of UK gay nightlife.
- obmelvin 8y ago
  I admit ignorance in this regard - simply restating a theory that seemed to make sense to me. I suppose being a parrot is bad, but it makes more sense to me than what the GP posted.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. There is then the audience that knows it is all bollocks from the start, many of whom treat it as a massive in-joke that they can take part in, rather than an actual attempt at lying, which wouldn't be the case if the lying was any good.
    - romwell 8y ago
      Very much this; in other words - the officials are trolling the world, with their electorate in on it.

rdtsc 8y ago

Interesting, yeah I can see it. I bet they thought it would work from both angles. Westerners will feel sorry for exposing the gay tourists and Russians will feel convinced they can't be GRU officers.

trhway 8y ago
>Russians will feel convinced they can't be GRU officers Russian internet has a field day(or a month already really) of jokes that the GRU officers, which all are undoubtedly, in the Russian mythos, true patriots and heterosexual macho made in the image of the Putin himself, would carry out every order for the Motherland - to kill a traitor, to die for the Motherland, and even to truly practice homosexuality, all in the name of Motherland on the orders of "the comrade General". The guys in the interview are obviously very bad at impersonating gays, and that follows pretty much the same outrageous "signature" style (the Russian saying is "sewn together using white thread" as it is very noticeable on any garments except white) as using "Novichok" and polonium (or assassinating major opposition leader right in front of the Putin's office windows) - all that is to make sure that there are no doubts about who really did it while of course officially denying any responsibility. Just like the signature killings by Mafia (which the Russian government in its nature really is) - everybody has to clearly understand who did it without the perpetrators and their bosses explicitly claiming it. To the "the_grue" below - sorry, man, no offense, you just don't understand what you're talking about. Most probably you're just not a Russian. Edit: you added that you speak Russian. Being a Russian and speak Russian are 2 very different things. That ridicule you see on the Internet is real, no doubts. What you don't get is that it doesn't make Putin ridiculous [deep] in the eyes of the populace and that it wasn't a failure [deep] in the eyes of that populace - and that is the main tragedy of Russia.
- the_grue 8y ago
  I don't buy it. This whole story makes GRU and, by extension, Putin himself look ridiculous in the eyes of their own populace. Russian-speaking Internet communities are savoring this failure in every conceivable way right now, ridiculing Putin and the Russian propaganda. And that's a major failure for Putin's regime, which is built on nationalism, on a promise of greatness, on claiming that Russia is a major world power, etc.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    It makes them look like they do not care about putting on a good show, because they do not feel they need to and they find it funnier to present an obvious circus. It also might be doubling as a public punishment for the spies for being sloppy. Putting them on TV like that is directly telling them that their careers are over. If lucky, they might be transformed into celebrities, just for the annoyance value to the UK. Is the international politics equivalent of telling someone to stop hitting themselves, after grabbing their wrist and whacking them in the face with their own hand.
    - the_grue 8y ago
      That would be way too subtle for the common folk. Whatever GRU's plan was, in reality most Russian people just take it at face value: Russian spies got exposed, Putin's lie got exposed, the spies put on a miserable show on TV, and now even their true identities have been exposed (only one so far, but I expect the other one to be exposed soon, too). That's a failure. I'm pretty sure you're reading way too much into it because you've been told Putin (and, by extension, his subordinates) was a great tactician one step ahead of everyone else. I never believed it and I don't believe it now.
      - cuboidGoat 8y ago
        >That would be way too subtle for the common folk. Are you channeling H. L. Menken? I think Putin is a comedian and two things I have noticed about Russian humour are firstly, always be deadpanning, and secondly, it isn't really funny unless someone ends up nearly dead. I also think he is a good tactician but a lousy strategist and I don't think he is in charge of as much of the CCCP as is made out. He is the front man for a conglomerate of interests, many of which operate largely autonomously, and would cause him no end of internal problems should he try and reign them in. This explains the sharp disconnect between the relative professionalism in the seizing of Crimea, while at the same time lending out SAM systems to idiots. I'd also say there is a very good chance that Putin did not order this operation in the first place and is playing cleanup. --- edit - I think there could also be a lot of "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" going on. It not being directly ordered is an alternative reason why someone so high up was doing this rather than a subordinate. This could well have been showing off to curry favour, knowing that the target was in the regime's bad books already. Being paraded on TV in the manner that they were after being uncovered, I think lends weight to this hypothesis.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

In decades past, being homosexual was considered a risk factor for intelligence agents. An adversary who knew they were gay could threaten exposure, thereby gaining a lever to potentially turn the agent. So they tried very hard to keep gays out of the intelligence services. I don't know if the US still does this. I'd be a bit surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia still did, though.

solveit 8y ago
I expect the US still does do this, but only for gay people in the closet since an openly gay person is immune to that sort of blackmail. Same goes for infidelity etc.
- cuboidGoat 8y ago
  Part of the reason they are slow-walking Trump's pronouncements on trans people in the military, is that after getting rid of 'don't ask don't tell', the military will have wanted to know about people's sexual preferences, especially in key roles, so as to guard against cases of blackmail. I guarantee that they will have key people who have told them all their kinks, that they are really trying hard not to get rid of.

cuboidGoat 8y ago

To anyone who has paid attention to any of the history of Russian/UK spy scandals, the idea that homosexuality would prevent someone from being a GRU officer, is frankly almost as hilarious as some of the Russian buzzfeed style sites posting articles about how Salisbury is the center of UK gay nightlife.

obmelvin 8y ago
I admit ignorance in this regard - simply restating a theory that seemed to make sense to me. I suppose being a parrot is bad, but it makes more sense to me than what the GP posted.
- cuboidGoat 8y ago
  The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. There is then the audience that knows it is all bollocks from the start, many of whom treat it as a massive in-joke that they can take part in, rather than an actual attempt at lying, which wouldn't be the case if the lying was any good.
  - romwell 8y ago
    Very much this; in other words - the officials are trolling the world, with their electorate in on it.