6 ms·

Putin’s Monte Carlo mystery, secret money and swanky real estate

30 points by ericdanielski 5y ago

cotton-cho 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20211004120442/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/putin-monaco-luxury-apartment/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211004120442/https://www.washi...
mkoryak 5y ago
Washington Post and wall street journal both require subscription to read their stories. Assuming that most HN readers don't have them, how do these stories get voted up to the front page?
- jc_811 5y ago
  If you disable JavaScript for washingtonpost.com you can read all of their articles. The only thing is that the images don't fully load (they remain blurry)
- tgv 5y ago
  By title? Possibly people upvote it in the hope that someone will publish an archive link.
- ChemSpider 5y ago
  I think many do have subscriptions and support good journalism. Otherwise archive.is is your friend.
- forlorn 5y ago
  https://archive.is/pdjiN https://archive.is/pdjiN
- miohtama 5y ago
  Keep hitting that Reader Mode button
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- room505 5y ago
  I subscribe. I will "gift" this article. https://wapo.st/3uHFEzI https://wapo.st/3uHFEzI
S_A_P 5y ago
So Putin had a child with a mistress and set her up financially. This seems pretty standard for anyone with significant wealth and/or power. I am pretty sure he is responsible for way worse atrocities than this. Further, haven't we known about the oligarchs of Russia for some time now? I don't think this is really exposing any new or unexpected behavior from Putin. This article reads more like a National Enquirer with extra details than some real expose. I almost don't really understand what the point of the article is. It certainly isn't anything that would lead the Russian people to lose faith in him. I guess you could say that it shows he doesn't follow the same rules that the Russian people are expected to follow, but I'm pretty sure they know that too.
- soco 5y ago
  Besides Putin the papers reveal also the entire network of helpers - companies and other puppets. On those the revelations will be more striking, I reckon. This kind of business thrives by staying in the shadows so the more light the better chances to work against them.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  There's a weird view that once you've told people about bad behavior once (and in the general case) then somehow you no longer need to share further and more specific evidence of bad behavior because it's redundant or something. However this view is both wrong and counterproductive if the goal is to actually reduce/prevent such behavior. In the real world, a lot of people aren't aware of even the general case -- they have limited attention and so while you may know that Russian oligarchs hide their money in real estate, someone who is less news-savvy may not realize it. Moreover even people who understand the general problem (Oligarchs stashing national wealth into real estate in democratic countries), they may not understand the specifics of how this is done and our laws are bent and abused -- by the oligarchs and moneyed interests in our own countries. In general I think the news agencies are correct to recognize that there is important news here, and that these specific new details are important and relevant to ongoing attempts to solve these problems. Moreover, I think that even in cases where the news is entirely "redundant" (e.g., "powerful criminals continue to behave in a criminal manner") it's extremely important to put a spotlight on the behavior from time to time just so that politicians and citizens are aware that it's ongoing and are motivated to perhaps actually do something about it (should they be interested in doing so.) I don't know why I'm writing this absurdly-long comment in response to a random downvoted complaint, but I see this "what's new here?!" response pattern quite frequently on HN and I think that pattern of thinking can be problematic; I wish I would see less of it. If you're not interested in an article, by all means scroll on.

30 points by ericdanielski 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20211004120442/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/putin-monaco-luxury-apartment/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211004120442/https://www.washi...

mkoryak 5y ago

Washington Post and wall street journal both require subscription to read their stories. Assuming that most HN readers don't have them, how do these stories get voted up to the front page?

jc_811 5y ago
If you disable JavaScript for washingtonpost.com you can read all of their articles. The only thing is that the images don't fully load (they remain blurry)
tgv 5y ago
By title? Possibly people upvote it in the hope that someone will publish an archive link.
ChemSpider 5y ago
I think many do have subscriptions and support good journalism. Otherwise archive.is is your friend.
forlorn 5y ago
https://archive.is/pdjiN https://archive.is/pdjiN
miohtama 5y ago
Keep hitting that Reader Mode button
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
room505 5y ago
I subscribe. I will "gift" this article. https://wapo.st/3uHFEzI https://wapo.st/3uHFEzI

S_A_P 5y ago

So Putin had a child with a mistress and set her up financially. This seems pretty standard for anyone with significant wealth and/or power. I am pretty sure he is responsible for way worse atrocities than this. Further, haven't we known about the oligarchs of Russia for some time now? I don't think this is really exposing any new or unexpected behavior from Putin. This article reads more like a National Enquirer with extra details than some real expose. I almost don't really understand what the point of the article is. It certainly isn't anything that would lead the Russian people to lose faith in him. I guess you could say that it shows he doesn't follow the same rules that the Russian people are expected to follow, but I'm pretty sure they know that too.

soco 5y ago
Besides Putin the papers reveal also the entire network of helpers - companies and other puppets. On those the revelations will be more striking, I reckon. This kind of business thrives by staying in the shadows so the more light the better chances to work against them.
matthewdgreen 5y ago
There's a weird view that once you've told people about bad behavior once (and in the general case) then somehow you no longer need to share further and more specific evidence of bad behavior because it's redundant or something. However this view is both wrong and counterproductive if the goal is to actually reduce/prevent such behavior. In the real world, a lot of people aren't aware of even the general case -- they have limited attention and so while you may know that Russian oligarchs hide their money in real estate, someone who is less news-savvy may not realize it. Moreover even people who understand the general problem (Oligarchs stashing national wealth into real estate in democratic countries), they may not understand the specifics of how this is done and our laws are bent and abused -- by the oligarchs and moneyed interests in our own countries. In general I think the news agencies are correct to recognize that there is important news here, and that these specific new details are important and relevant to ongoing attempts to solve these problems. Moreover, I think that even in cases where the news is entirely "redundant" (e.g., "powerful criminals continue to behave in a criminal manner") it's extremely important to put a spotlight on the behavior from time to time just so that politicians and citizens are aware that it's ongoing and are motivated to perhaps actually do something about it (should they be interested in doing so.) I don't know why I'm writing this absurdly-long comment in response to a random downvoted complaint, but I see this "what's new here?!" response pattern quite frequently on HN and I think that pattern of thinking can be problematic; I wish I would see less of it. If you're not interested in an article, by all means scroll on.