5 ms·

Snowden was behaving like a Russian propagandist in late 2021 and early 2022. He was repeating Russian lies that they were totally not going to invade etc.

by 0xDEF 3y ago

caskstrength 3y ago
It is funny how all comments (including mine) pointing out that fact are heavily down-voted without any counterarguments. I know the rules, so I won't insinuate any kind of "shilling", but that really makes you think...
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  Snowden claimed in 2014 that the 2012 Internet shutdown in Syria was actually done by the NSA and not Assad. The totalitarian dictator apparently cared too much about the free flow of information to do such a thing. https://time.com/3107684/snowden-nsa-syria-cybersecurity/ https://time.com/3107684/snowden-nsa-syria-cybersecurity/ He didn't provide any proof for this and anyone who questioned Assad's dedication to a free and unfiltered Internet was apparently an NSA shill. That was when the world should have learned that he had been turned by Russian intelligence.
- 93po 3y ago
  I downvote it because it’s been repeated a dozen times and there’s a lack of intellectual honesty to say that a prediction that Russia wouldn’t invade is the same as spreading Russian propaganda for deliberate and malicious reasons. I can’t be bothered to explain it more than this because any ability to not see this means I’m wasting my time explaining it further
  - caskstrength 3y ago
    > I downvote it because it’s been repeated a dozen times and there’s a lack of intellectual honesty to say that a prediction that Russia wouldn’t invade is the same as spreading Russian propaganda for deliberate and malicious reasons. It wasn't just a good-faith prediction, he was quite cocky and arrogant about that[0], including, ironically, accusing others of amplifying disinformation campaign: "So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility." At the same time he didn't appear too fazed by the invasion after it had begun, just casually accused others of concern-trolling[1] and "happily and thankfully" accepted Russian citizenship[2]. > I can’t be bothered to explain it more than this because any ability to not see this means I’m wasting my time explaining it further I'm engaging in this discussion constructively and provide links to support my position. You preemptively accuse me of willful ignorance, but after re-reading his tweets I still stand by my words. [0]: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016 [1]: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705 [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/02/edward-snowden-gets-russian-passport-after-swearing-oath-of-allegiance https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/02/edward-snowd...
    - phatfish 3y ago
      I'll be charitable by assuming that people here are getting defensive by their hero not living up to expectations. Snowden is (justifiably) angry about the US treatment of him and happily amplifies Russian propaganda as some sort of badly considered revenge. It's a shame that he uses his platform for this, especially as the current propaganda is in support of Russia rolling their tanks across the border and killing thousands of people in Ukraine.
      - InSteady 3y ago
        Also worth noting that it is strongly in his interest to craft and filter his public dialogue with the interests of the Russian state in mind. It is a basic fact of his existence, whether it is something he thinks about explicitly and often or not. Of course Russia isn't going to execute him or throw in in a gulag, since he is more valuable to them as a political set-piece that somewhat undermines America's moral high ground. However, that doesn't mean they can't lean on him considerably and make his life severely unpleasant in myriad subtle ways. There is no way he isn't acutely aware of Russia's reputation for brutal coercive tactics regarding their political enemies and targets, especially domestic ones. He is completely at their mercy and he knows it. What is he going to do, cry out to the world that Russia is hounding and harassing him, or otherwise making his already beleaguered situation even less tenable? First of all, who is going to care that can do anything about it, second, it will delight people he almost certainly views as his enemy for him to make any such pleas and thirdly, it starts down a path of no return to start calling out Russia for abuses while you are stuck there with no allies and no way out. Being on reasonably amicable terms with the power-elite in Russia is pretty much the last, best hope he has in this world. Whether consciously or not, the severe ramifications of burning that bridge are going to weigh on every decision and proclamation he makes. Of course he may always consider this effect and choose actions that upset Russia/Putin without regard for personal consequences. But it becomes increasingly easy to justify the path that doesn't lead to the complete crushing of your spirit the longer you have lived your life staring down the barrel of 5 or 10 different shotguns trained right between your eyes. And of course it gets easier still when you feel wronged and martyred by the enemy of your friend, even if that friend is born purely out of necessity and circumstance. Anyway, all that is to say, thought I am grateful for his attempt to protect American citizens' constitutional rights and hold the government that professes to fight always for freedom to a higher standard... I have to take anything he has said in recent years as extremely biased and a product of "soft" but very serious coercion (from multiple fronts).
yreg 3y ago
For what it's worth almost everyone but US government predicted the Russians won't invade. Zelensky himself predicted there is no imminent invasion and complained that the west creates panic which is harmful to UA economy.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  This is true; and I find it hard to understand. I mean, I can understand Zelensky talking it down; as the public face of Ukraine's government, I assume everything he says is propaganda of some kind (whether or not it's true). But back in December, the satellite photos were showing the huge build-up of troops and armour on Ukraine's border. I didn't believe it was just an "exercise", nor did I believe it was sabre-rattling. I was convinced that an invasion was imminent. I paid no attention to Snowden's opinion; he was a guest of the Russian government, and couldn't easily flee Russia.
  - midasz 3y ago
    > This is true; and I find it hard to understand. Russia actually invading Ukraine full-on was the most irrational and self-destructive thing Putin could've done. By all measures it was and still is a terrible idea. Only if you thought Putin was a madman you could've predicted it but before the invasion that wasn't his reputation at all IMO. I think he was seen as relatively pragmatic and rational (for a thug).
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      I agree that it looked like a crazy thing to do. But I'm not one of those who reaches for the word "madman" when someone does something that seems to me to be irrational. With the benefit of hindsight, it doesn't seem so irrational to me now. * Russia was under sanctions for the invasion of Crimea; the central bank had built up a huge stock of foreign currency, but it was only going to diminish with time. * The Russian economy was at best stagnant, and largely powered by resource extraction. * Ukraine was an impediment to land-traffic to Crimea (hence the need to build a bridge over the Kerch Strait), and also controlled the water supply. * Ukraine was tooling-up. For those reasons, delaying the invasion would have resulted in worse outcomes, the longer the delay. As far as the justification for invading at all, you can take your pick from Russian fear of having a full NATO member on his Western border, or dreams of a restored Russian empire. I think both justifications are crazy, but dreams of a restored imperial glory are common among Russian nationalists. They can't all be madmen.

Snowden was behaving like a Russian propagandist in late 2021 and early 2022. He was repeating Russian lies that they were totally not going to invade etc.

by 0xDEF 3y ago

Snowden was behaving like a Russian propagandist in late 2021 and early 2022. He was repeating Russian lies that they were totally not going to invade etc.

caskstrength 3y ago

It is funny how all comments (including mine) pointing out that fact are heavily down-voted without any counterarguments. I know the rules, so I won't insinuate any kind of "shilling", but that really makes you think...

0xDEF 3y ago
Snowden claimed in 2014 that the 2012 Internet shutdown in Syria was actually done by the NSA and not Assad. The totalitarian dictator apparently cared too much about the free flow of information to do such a thing. https://time.com/3107684/snowden-nsa-syria-cybersecurity/ https://time.com/3107684/snowden-nsa-syria-cybersecurity/ He didn't provide any proof for this and anyone who questioned Assad's dedication to a free and unfiltered Internet was apparently an NSA shill. That was when the world should have learned that he had been turned by Russian intelligence.
93po 3y ago
I downvote it because it’s been repeated a dozen times and there’s a lack of intellectual honesty to say that a prediction that Russia wouldn’t invade is the same as spreading Russian propaganda for deliberate and malicious reasons. I can’t be bothered to explain it more than this because any ability to not see this means I’m wasting my time explaining it further
- caskstrength 3y ago
  > I downvote it because it’s been repeated a dozen times and there’s a lack of intellectual honesty to say that a prediction that Russia wouldn’t invade is the same as spreading Russian propaganda for deliberate and malicious reasons. It wasn't just a good-faith prediction, he was quite cocky and arrogant about that[0], including, ironically, accusing others of amplifying disinformation campaign: "So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility." At the same time he didn't appear too fazed by the invasion after it had begun, just casually accused others of concern-trolling[1] and "happily and thankfully" accepted Russian citizenship[2]. > I can’t be bothered to explain it more than this because any ability to not see this means I’m wasting my time explaining it further I'm engaging in this discussion constructively and provide links to support my position. You preemptively accuse me of willful ignorance, but after re-reading his tweets I still stand by my words. [0]: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016 [1]: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705 [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/02/edward-snowden-gets-russian-passport-after-swearing-oath-of-allegiance https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/02/edward-snowd...
  - phatfish 3y ago
    I'll be charitable by assuming that people here are getting defensive by their hero not living up to expectations. Snowden is (justifiably) angry about the US treatment of him and happily amplifies Russian propaganda as some sort of badly considered revenge. It's a shame that he uses his platform for this, especially as the current propaganda is in support of Russia rolling their tanks across the border and killing thousands of people in Ukraine.
    - InSteady 3y ago
      Also worth noting that it is strongly in his interest to craft and filter his public dialogue with the interests of the Russian state in mind. It is a basic fact of his existence, whether it is something he thinks about explicitly and often or not. Of course Russia isn't going to execute him or throw in in a gulag, since he is more valuable to them as a political set-piece that somewhat undermines America's moral high ground. However, that doesn't mean they can't lean on him considerably and make his life severely unpleasant in myriad subtle ways. There is no way he isn't acutely aware of Russia's reputation for brutal coercive tactics regarding their political enemies and targets, especially domestic ones. He is completely at their mercy and he knows it. What is he going to do, cry out to the world that Russia is hounding and harassing him, or otherwise making his already beleaguered situation even less tenable? First of all, who is going to care that can do anything about it, second, it will delight people he almost certainly views as his enemy for him to make any such pleas and thirdly, it starts down a path of no return to start calling out Russia for abuses while you are stuck there with no allies and no way out. Being on reasonably amicable terms with the power-elite in Russia is pretty much the last, best hope he has in this world. Whether consciously or not, the severe ramifications of burning that bridge are going to weigh on every decision and proclamation he makes. Of course he may always consider this effect and choose actions that upset Russia/Putin without regard for personal consequences. But it becomes increasingly easy to justify the path that doesn't lead to the complete crushing of your spirit the longer you have lived your life staring down the barrel of 5 or 10 different shotguns trained right between your eyes. And of course it gets easier still when you feel wronged and martyred by the enemy of your friend, even if that friend is born purely out of necessity and circumstance. Anyway, all that is to say, thought I am grateful for his attempt to protect American citizens' constitutional rights and hold the government that professes to fight always for freedom to a higher standard... I have to take anything he has said in recent years as extremely biased and a product of "soft" but very serious coercion (from multiple fronts).

yreg 3y ago

For what it's worth almost everyone but US government predicted the Russians won't invade. Zelensky himself predicted there is no imminent invasion and complained that the west creates panic which is harmful to UA economy.

denton-scratch 3y ago
This is true; and I find it hard to understand. I mean, I can understand Zelensky talking it down; as the public face of Ukraine's government, I assume everything he says is propaganda of some kind (whether or not it's true). But back in December, the satellite photos were showing the huge build-up of troops and armour on Ukraine's border. I didn't believe it was just an "exercise", nor did I believe it was sabre-rattling. I was convinced that an invasion was imminent. I paid no attention to Snowden's opinion; he was a guest of the Russian government, and couldn't easily flee Russia.
- midasz 3y ago
  > This is true; and I find it hard to understand. Russia actually invading Ukraine full-on was the most irrational and self-destructive thing Putin could've done. By all measures it was and still is a terrible idea. Only if you thought Putin was a madman you could've predicted it but before the invasion that wasn't his reputation at all IMO. I think he was seen as relatively pragmatic and rational (for a thug).
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    I agree that it looked like a crazy thing to do. But I'm not one of those who reaches for the word "madman" when someone does something that seems to me to be irrational. With the benefit of hindsight, it doesn't seem so irrational to me now. * Russia was under sanctions for the invasion of Crimea; the central bank had built up a huge stock of foreign currency, but it was only going to diminish with time. * The Russian economy was at best stagnant, and largely powered by resource extraction. * Ukraine was an impediment to land-traffic to Crimea (hence the need to build a bridge over the Kerch Strait), and also controlled the water supply. * Ukraine was tooling-up. For those reasons, delaying the invasion would have resulted in worse outcomes, the longer the delay. As far as the justification for invading at all, you can take your pick from Russian fear of having a full NATO member on his Western border, or dreams of a restored Russian empire. I think both justifications are crazy, but dreams of a restored imperial glory are common among Russian nationalists. They can't all be madmen.